Errors in the decision-making process. Seven Common Adoption Mistakes

"Decisions that are made by everyone managerial levels, in some cases lead to disorganization” Ostrovsky E.V. Psychology of management. - M.: University textbook, 2011. P. 139. Errors in management decisions are interconnected with violations of company management principles. 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 management decisions.

Pendulum solutions. These decisions are of an erroneous nature and consist in “changing” an erroneous decision by attempting to “return” to what was previously. For example, during the period of perestroika, older people complain that under socialism it was not as bad as in present time, we need to return the old order and everything will return “to normal.” Another example: the company decided to reduce its sales department. The marketing department was entrusted with the functions performed by the sales department (due to an increase in the total volume of work); marketing research. The marketing strategy began to lose its effectiveness. With a new decision, the sales department was restored again.

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

Decisions that ignore organizational hierarchy. In this case, the very principle of management “by 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. In case of violation this principle the decision is addressed through hierarchy. Eg, general director orders are issued addressed to the chief of a certain department, bypassing even the leadership of the unit.

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 existing departments (functionally suitable for carrying out these functions) operate at 50% saturation. This should also include decisions in which rules prevail over function (for example, officials).

Conflicting decisions. Such decisions, which contradict previously generally accepted ones, present performers with a problem: what actually needs to 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 They also appear if the principle of unity of command is violated and workers receive two instructions that contain conflicting instructions. For example, the shift foreman gives the command “break for lunch,” and the site foreman orders to work without a break in order to speed up production. Traditionally, workers in this case give preference to the orders of senior management, while at the same time neglecting the instructions of the relaxed foreman.

Unfeasible (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. Next solutions traditionally are not executed at all, and when they are executed, they lead to unexpected results that are the opposite of the goal.

Late decisions. Solutions similar type are taken by managers as a result of the danger of missing the mark and making the wrong decision if an unreasonably large amount of time is spent on developing operational measures. In this case, a detailed solution is relevant for the past, i.e. is adopted later than necessary, and no matter how well thought out, detailed and tested it was, it has already lost its modernity in the changed conditions.

Demotivating decisions. “Decisions that use inadequate motivation (not corresponding to the socio-psychological collective characteristics), for example, the use of coercive motivation where incentive could be used, 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. P. 152.. For example, the director issues an order, which also states that failure to implement this decision entails financial penalty in such and such an amount from the employee’s salary, instead of entrusting a bonus in the event successful implementation decisions, or instructs free issue tights in a team consisting of 82% men.

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

Undeveloped solutions. These are the solutions needed by this company that are constantly being communicated, but no one is receiving them. They are among the most dangerous looking decisions, because even a 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 is accompanied by a loss of enthusiasm among employees, customers and those with whom the company interacts at all her degrees. Similar company perceived as "dying".

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

Subjective errors:

• 1. The habit of receiving a solution according to the chosen template (“We did this at any time”)
• 2. Overestimation of probable success (“I will certainly be lucky”)
• 3. Appeal to your own experiment (“My experience should make the right choice”)
• 4. Attunement to subjective desires (“I really want this”)
• 5. Underestimating risk (“It won’t happen to me”)
• 6. Focus on the most feasible option (“But we’ll do everything quickly”)
• 7. The need to prove that you are right (“I always end up being right”)
• 8. Tailoring information to your plan (option) (“My idea must work”)
• 9. Abstract manner of decision-making (“the reason is clear, but we’ll figure it out”)
• 10. The pressure of failure (“I’ve already been burned more than once”)

Objective errors:

• 1. Oversaturation of the decision being made, which as a result is not always implemented
• 2. New decisions contradict previously adopted ones
• 3. When making a decision, unrealistic deadlines are set. Everyone understands, but nevertheless they get a solution
• 4. New solutions duplicate solutions that were adopted earlier, but do not work
• 5. The decision made turns out to be half-hearted due to the situation
• 6. Decisions have a certain likelihood of conflict during implementation
• 7. The decision is made by the majority, although the minority judgment must be correct
• 8. Decisions are made taking into account 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

Throughout life, we not only commit actions, make decisions before committing them, but also make mistakes while doing so. Therefore, it is useful to study the most common of them in order to understand what to fear and how to act. As you know, knowing your mistakes is half the success!

In life, many decisions involve assessing the likelihood of success. We put on a raincoat when we think it will rain; we take the metro if we need to get somewhere during rush hour (knowing that by car you can get stuck in a traffic jam); we buy a lottery ticket, probably exaggerating our chances of success; We expect your beloved to win football team in the game with not too strong opponent. As Solso R.L. notes, “Sometimes the probability of an event can be calculated using mathematics, and sometimes an event can be determined only on the basis of previous experience. In such cases, we believe that we are acting rationally because decisions are based strictly on mathematical probability, but how accurate are our estimates?” (Solso, 1996, p. 443).

Availability heuristic ( availabilityheuristic).

Under heuristics understand the purposeful procedure of reducing possible alternatives to simplify decision making ( this definition based on the definition of heuristics in Reber's (2000) dictionary.

As R. Solso writes, Tversky, Kahneman and Miller studied why people sometimes come to the wrong conclusion when they base their decisions on past experience. Most people, when asked what words in English language more: those starting with the letter K or those where it is the third, they answered that more than those where the letter K is in first place. And this is not true. Why did people misjudge this event? According to Tversky and Kahneman, when answering this question, people first tried to remember words where the letter K came first, and then ¾ where on the third. For the first case they were able to recall more words than for the second. The fact is that words starting with the letter K are more accessible, i.e. they are easier to remember, and therefore it seems that there are more such words in the language. The error is based on a generalization made from a very limited set of words available during decision recall.

Researchers Slovic, Fischhof, and Lichtenstein (1977) used the availability hypothesis to explain errors people made in estimating the relative probabilities of 48 causes of death. People considered the causes often mentioned in publications to be more likely causes of death. For example, accidents, cancer, botulism, natural disasters (see Solso, 1996). Since we remember an event better if it happened recently, had a strong emotional impact on us, and is often covered in the press, we evaluate it as more likely, although often we have no real reason for this.

There is also an effect close to the availability heuristic associated with the perception and assessment of probability - uh visibility effect – a phenomenon when an event seems more likely to a person if its occurrence and possible consequences can be easily visualized. Research shows that our evaluations and judgments are influenced by the vividness and vividness of information. The fact is that, with other equal conditions Vivid visual information is easier to remember, so events associated with it are assessed as more likely.

Selective perception.

Selective perception manifests itself in not seeing obvious errors where we do not expect to see them at all. One of the most famous experiments on selective perception, writes S. Plous (Plous S., 1993), was published by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman (1949). In it, subjects were presented, over a series of fairly short presentations, among five playing cards identify a card that does not exist in reality - a black three of hearts. Bruner and Postman found that subjects took 4 times longer to recognize a false card than a normal card.

Halo effect or halo effect ( haloeffect).

The halo effect, writes Plous S., 1993, gets its name from researcher Edward Thorndike, who found that senior military officers tasked with rating their officers on such diverse characteristics as intelligence, physique, leadership and character , gave them ratings that were often highly correlated. Thorndike also found that there were positive correlations between the various teacher evaluations used to determine their salaries and career advancement. For example, in one case, the overall merit of teachers was highly correlated with their ratings on appearance, health, speed, intelligence, honesty and sincerity. In another case, teachers' voice ratings were highly correlated with ratings of their intelligence and "interest in public affairs."

Gorbatov (2000) explains the halo effect using the example of assessment carried out by teachers themselves. This is the influence on the mark of established ideas about the student’s capabilities, his image (for example, “smart student”, “interested in my discipline”).

We often even judge a person’s actions based on the previously formed opinion about him. If the opinion about a person is generally positive, then we are more inclined to justify even his bad act than a similar act of another, ideas about whose characteristics are negative for us.

Since Thorndike's time, many researchers have described manifestations of the halo effect in various areas of life. These are experiments by Asch, Cooper, Feldman, Harold Kelley and others. Based on the work of Cooper (1981) (originally titled "The Omnipresent Halo") and Feldman (1986), Plouse writes: "We now know that Thorndike's discoveries were due in part to technical aspects of the design of rating scales, but main idea has stood the test of time. Even when sophisticated measurement techniques are used to establish ratings, the halo effect often occurs."

Framing effect ( Framingeffect).

To explain this effect, you can use an example from Kathleen Galotti's book. Let's say you run out of gas while on the road. But, fortunately, two gas stations are visible not far away. As you get closer, you read the terms and conditions for the sale of fuel on one and the other. On the first, a gallon of fuel costs $1.00, on the second - $0.95. Also, at the first station you get a 5 cent discount per gallon if you pay with cash, and at the second station you have to pay 5 cents more per gallon if you use a credit card. The remaining characteristics of the stations are the same. Which station do you prefer? Interestingly, most people choose the first station even though the fuel price at both stations is essentially the same: $0.95/gallon for cash and $1.00/gallon for cash credit card. According to K. Galotti (Galotti K.M., 1994), Tversky and Kahneman (Tversky A., Kahneman D., 1981) explained this phenomenon in terms of the framing effect. Depending on the description of the current situation, people evaluate the outcomes of events as either gains or losses. That is, their decision depends on the context of the description of the situation.

According to Kahneman and Tversky (1979), we are more sensitive to losses than to gains (see Galotti K.M., 1994). Therefore, we are more concerned about losing a dollar than gaining one. This is where the contribution effect comes from.

Contribution effect (endowmenteffect).

Its essence is that a person who owns some value sets a price for it that is higher than the one who is going to acquire this value is willing to pay. Probably, a person who is going to sell some object that is valuable to him regards the sale as a loss, and someone who wants to buy this object considers the acquisition as a gain. Despite the fact that in in this case The objective values ​​of loss and gain are equal, the subjective value of gain is less than the subjective value of loss.

Representativeness heuristic (representativenessheuristic).

People make mistakes associated with the representativeness heuristic when assessing the outcome of a random process. Diana Halpern's book (2000) gives an example of tossing one coin six times. You need to guess how the distribution of heads (O) or tails (P) is distributed in six cases. There are many possible sequences, but if you only choose from three, for example:

O-R-O-R-R-O

R-R-R-O-O-O

O-R-O-R-O-R,

most people will choose the first one because... it seems more like a random distribution of heads and tails. However, according to the mathematical theory of probability, any sequence of heads and tails for six cases is equally probable. People tend to imagine randomness as a process devoid of patterns, and sequence O-P-O-P-O-P seems less likely for six coin flips than another sequence that appears more random. But, as stated above, this is not true.

Overconfidence.

According to D. Halpern (2000), research shows that people have more confidence than they should in their decisions regarding probabilistic events. This also applies to purchases. lottery tickets, and to the desire to earn good money by investing it in securities With high risk, and so on. But most of all, in uncertain situations, we are most inclined to believe in success if it seems to us that we can control random events. For example, when we choose our lottery numbers ourselves. But even so, the winning number still depends on chance, and our chances of success are no better.

Let's agree with Halpern that most of us are probably overconfident in our assessments. random event. Possibly, optimists are too confident in success, and pessimists - on the contrary. But what about those who are always doubting and hesitating, who are constantly “thrown” either hot or cold? Today he is 100% sure that he will win, and tomorrow he is 99.99% sure that he will lose, for example, having bet a tidy sum on a horse race. What assessment of probabilistic events will such people give? Probably, many found themselves in a situation independent of them, when their assessments of this probabilistic event changed with the frequency of the dollar’s ​​rise on Black Tuesday.

Trend wishful thinking.

This tendency is related to the overconfidence described above. An example is information from Diana Halpern's (2000) book about the overly optimistic attitude of Southern Californians towards seismologists' predictions about largest earthquake over the next 50 years. Most residents believe that there will be no earthquake, and if there is one, it will be “somewhere else.”

Trap.

As Halpern puts it, trap- this is a situation when a person has already invested money, time, effort and decides to continue doing this for the sake of his initial investment (D. Halpern, 2000). People fall into such traps quite often: it is difficult for us to hang up the phone when, having finally reached the help desk, we hear “wait for an answer” - and we continue to wait, often to no avail; We are sorry to throw away an old car in which a lot of money has already been invested and even more is needed. Even politicians and businessmen make similar mistakes, only on a much more serious scale. For example, continuing to finance some projects, mainly because large amounts of money have already been invested in them.

Rule of reciprocity.

Our emotions and mood play an important role in our decision-making, since they influence the thinking process. For example, in good mood a person gives a beggar, say, 10 rubles, but a poor person gives only 5.

The rule of reciprocity is also related to our emotional state. We usually feel a sense of gratitude in response to something provided by another person and encourage us to reciprocate in kind. Although often we do not need this service or courtesy at all. R. Cialdini (2000) writes about an interesting experiment conducted by a university professor. He sent Christmas cards to many complete strangers. Imagine his surprise that in response he received almost as many congratulations. The rule of reciprocity probably came into play when people felt obliged to repay kindness for kindness.

In another case, this rule was used by a savvy waiter, who first recommended cheaper and best dishes, what they first chose, and then easily persuaded them to order the most expensive wines.

R. Cialdini offers protection from the pressure of the reciprocity rule. He believes that it is necessary to accept the services or concessions of others with sincere gratitude, but at the same time be ready to regard their tricks as cunning tricks if they appear as such later. Once concessions or favors are defined in this way, we will no longer feel obliged to reciprocate them with a favor or concession of our own.

Effect previous acquaintance.

This effect is used in advertising: be it political advertising or advertising of a product. It is described in the work of D. Halpern (2000). To illustrate it, it is enough to remember that sometimes in elections, among many people unknown to us, we choose those about whom we have heard at least something, and among large quantity names of coffee - the one that was remembered from advertising. “Thus, prior experience creates a feeling of familiarity, which in turn creates a feeling of liking” (Halpern D., 2000, p. 369). It is important not to be influenced by this effect, especially when making important decisions.

Misconceptions

A. Unfortunately, even professionals are not immune from mistakes and misconceptions. As typical example Such misconceptions Diana Harper (2000) cites the results of studies conducted among nurses by Smedslund (Smedslund J., 1963) and doctors by Berger (Berger D., 1994). Smedslund provided the nurses with cards, each of which indicated whether a given patient suffered from a particular disease and whether or not the patient had a particular symptom. Information was taken from the medical records of 100 patients. “This gave us four possible combinations for each patient. The patient: a) has a disease and certain symptoms; b) has neither the disease nor these symptoms; c) does not have a disease, but has symptoms; d) has a disease, but has no symptoms. The task for nurses was to discover the relationship between the presence of a disease and symptoms. The majority of nurses assumed that there was a relationship, basing their decision on the fact that 37 patients had disease and symptoms and 13 had neither disease nor symptoms. The fact that 33 cases had symptoms but no disease, and 17 cases had disease but no symptoms, they ignored” (Halpern, 2000, p. 355). That is, these professionals simply discarded half of the information available to them. In fact, there is no relationship here, because there is a high probability of a disease existing without symptoms, or there may be symptoms without a disease.

B. Illusorycorrelation(Illusory Correlation). The phenomenon of delusion described above using an example from the book by D. Halpern, and the phenomenon of illusory correlation described in the book by Galotti K.M. (1994), the essence is the same. Kathleen Galotti gives the following definition of this phenomenon. The phenomenon of seeing relationships that do not exist is called illusory correlation. In this paper, Galotti, talking about illusory correlation, describes a behavioral pattern called "hair twirling." The point of this example is that even experts (or near-experts) were inclined to see some connection between twirling one's hair and being under stress because the relationship seems plausible. In reality, such a relationship does not exist. This was confirmed by studies (conducted by the same specialists). It can be seen that the ratios of the numbers of people who twirl their hair on their fingers and people who do not do this are the same for both situations (under stress and not under stress) (Table 6).

Table 6

Correlation of manifestations of stress (example)

Bias. Confirmation tendency.

According to Halpern's definition: “The tendency to select information that corresponds to our ideas is called the tendency to confirmation, or bias"(Halpern, 2000). This tendency was demonstrated by the nurses in the example described above when they failed to consider evidence that contradicted their decision about the relationship between symptoms and diseases. Jurors in court may be biased. They often construct a plausible story of what might have happened at the crime scene. Then, from the information obtained during the investigation, they select only that which confirms their version.

Retrospective assessment.

In Russia they say: “You are strong in hindsight.” Usually people judge an event in hindsight, when time “shows” that the decision made in connection with it was wrong. A typical example is given in the works of Solso (1996) and Halpern (2000) about the Pearl Harbor tragedy. It is known that significant damage to the US Navy was caused, among other things, because the coast guard forces, having seen the bombers, did not immediately identify them as enemy, i.e. Japanese. The authors write: “In our early analyzes of the Pearl Harbor tragedy, it seemed clear that the only possible solution there would be speculation that the bombers belonged to Japan. But we must remember that we analyzed the disaster, already knowing all the subsequent events down to the smallest detail” (Halpern, 2000). Knowing your ability to be “strong in hindsight”, when making a decision, it is better to foresee the consequences of the fact that it turns out to be wrong.

Prisoner's dilemma.

In life, the outcome of our choices often depends on the choices of another person. For example, you will not be bored at a party where you agreed to go, provided that your best friend also decided to go there. Of course, a party is not that serious. But there are situations in life when the success or failure of the choice you make will depend on the decision of your opponent or partner. A good confirmation of this circumstance is an example from the book by Morgunov E.B. (2000), known as the prisoner's dilemma. “Two prisoners in different cells are on the same case. If both continue to deny their guilt, each will receive 3 years. If one of them confesses and the other does not, the first will receive 1 year, and the second - 25 years. If both confess, they will get 10 years. Everyone understands that he has two options: not to confess (but there is a big risk here - suddenly the second one confesses) or to confess faster than the other does. As a result, both often confess and receive 10 years. The main problem of the dilemma is the interdependence of the decisions made. Best result is achieved when the other side chooses the worst solution for itself personally” (Morgunov, 2000).

The likely reason that both confess is that they are engaged in wishful thinking, i.e. each thinks that the other does not confess.

There are probably many more misconceptions and mistakes that people make when making decisions in life, but the main task is to develop rules on how to make the right decisions.

To improve your decision making, here are some things you can do:

First, collect as much as possible full information related to the problem being solved, that is, to conduct research. Many experts consider this important. For example, psychology professor Diana Halpern writes: “Almost any decision can be improved by research that reduces uncertainty. For example, if you are unsure about the safety of nuclear power plants, you could spend a day in the library and read materials about the pros and cons nuclear power. Then you can make an informed and conscious decision about it the most important issue” (Halpern, 2000, p. 371).

Secondly, consider and carefully analyze all possible decision alternatives, “weighing” them. Think (as comprehensively as possible) about the consequences if you choose one or another decision option. It is advisable to consider who else may be affected by your decision.

Third, try to avoid prejudices and erroneous judgments, and not fall under the influence of others.

Fourth, if necessary, use various auxiliary means, special techniques to help in decision making. This could be the preparation and use of a so-called worksheet to select the most profitable solution.

“Although there are several variations of worksheet shapes, they are all broadly similar. They prescribe a clear and precise statement of the problem; transfer as possible more possible options that can lead to the desired goal; expressing considerations that may influence the choice of solution; an assessment of the relative importance of each consideration expressed and a purely arithmetical calculation of the decision itself. The final result of the worksheet is the sum of the points scored by each possible option solutions. Option dialed greatest number points, is recognized as the best” (Halpern, 2000, p. 374). This technique was used in the example discussed above to describe expected utility theory and multi-attribute utility theory. Sometimes it is useful to represent the decision process graphically in the form of tree diagrams (especially if the decision involves probabilities). Also an effective tool are special computer programs for decision making.

Decision making is very important for a person. His fate and the fate of those close to him depend on what decisions he makes. Therefore, decisions must be taken thoughtfully and responsibly.

Introduction
Interest in the quality of management is growing in Russia. Moreover, there is a widespread opinion that Russian management is very far from modern requirements.
All analysts agree that the prosperity of a company depends on top managers - how well they work, the company will be successful.
Many managers began to realize that those methods and techniques that worked effectively yesterday were no longer producing the desired results. The external environment forces the manager to do something. The company begins to standardize business processes, create systems for clear monitoring of personnel activities, and actively implement information Technology And so on. However, this does not bring qualitative changes in moving forward. Relying on these instruments does not allow one to overcome barriers and enter a new stage of development.
Transition Russian companies to the new quality condition and their further successful development depend on several key decisions, on a shift in emphasis in company management. We need to move from standardization to delegation of authority. Move from control to a motivation system. We should move from technology to inspiration. Moreover, this needs to be done in a complex manner.
This is a challenge for Russian executives who are determined to take their business to new level. The key task of a leader is to inspire and give special meaning to all the actions of the organization. A leader should not be a “machine with a management function.” Inspiring people is a special art that is born from one’s own inspiration for an idea.

1. Acceptance by the manager management decisions
Management decisions are made by the manager for his subordinate employees. The most difficult management decisions are those that are made, on the one hand, under time pressure, and on the other, under conditions of information uncertainty and inconsistency. These decisions serve as the main criterion for evaluating a manager. The difficulty of their adoption can be mitigated only if they are prepared in advance, which is not always possible in management practice. The main requirement for managers in this regard is to find a way to make decisions in a timely manner, i.e. not too late or not too early. In the first case, you will have to solve an “overripe” problem, and therefore do the work with great effort; in the second, you will have to solve an “immature” problem, as a result of which the decision made can be greatly adjusted or canceled.
In preparing a management decision, it is important for a manager to understand why this or that problem arose. Therefore, it is better to check all the information received by him on a particular issue himself in order to avoid the mistakes that may arise when information is presented by his immediate circle (rumors, speculation, prejudice, discrimination against someone). A double check is necessary to make sure for yourself that there is a problem.
But situations often arise when a lot of problems accumulate. They can be formulated, but it is important to choose a priority one, i.e. one on the resolution of which the resolution of other problems would depend. Here you can apply the double alternative method in weighing the consequences that will reveal themselves if the problem is resolved and if it is not resolved. Information on this issue can be obtained either from an expert survey of managers or business game open type, when teams play and evaluate these consequences, weighing the “pros” and “cons” in the answers to each question.
When the consequences of each are clarified decisions taken, then it is very important to understand not only what decision needs to be made, but also at what level, who to invite to finalize it, what resources...

Even God probably made a mistake when he created man who increasingly shows his inability to preserve his creations. Moreover, every leader makes many wrong decisions throughout his career. The most typical mistakes of managers when making decisions are presented in table. 7.4.

Errors of managers when making decisions

Table 7.4

Subjective errors	Objective errors
1. The habit of making decisions selected template ("We've always done it this way")	1. Oversaturation of accepted decisions, which as a result are not always carried out
2. Reassessment of possible success (“I will definitely be lucky”)	2. New solutions contradict those which have already been accepted
3. Appeal to own experience (“My experience will help make right choice»)	3. When making a decision, it is determined unrealistic deadlines. Everyone understands this, but nevertheless makes a decision
4. Subjective mindset desires (“I really want this”)	4. New solutions duplicate those that were accepted earlier, but do not work
5. Underestimation of risk (“With me this won't happen")	5. The decision made turns out to be due to circumstances half-hearted
6. Installation on the most executable (“But we’ll do everything quickly”)	6. There is a certain the possibility of conflict during their implementation
7. The desire to prove oneself ("Ultimately I'm always right")	7. The decision is made by a majority, although the minority opinion may be correct
8. Customize information to suit your needs idea (option) of a solution (“My idea should work”)	8. Decisions are made with the expectation that that errors will be corrected during its implementation
9. Abstract Acceptance Style (“The meaning is clear, but we’ll figure it out”)	9. Due to lack of time the step-by-step decision-making procedure is ignored
10. The pressure of failure (“I’ve already been burned more than once”)	10. There is no one to prepare information, necessary for decision making

Questions and exercises

1. Gilbert's first competence theorem and its consequences.

2. How might the potential for increased productivity affect the choice of decision alternatives?

3. What are the possibilities of applying Hilbert’s third theorem for

increasing staff efficiency?

4. What basic types of information do workers need to be productive?

5. Describe the basic principles of management from the point of view of their influence on the efficiency of personnel.

6. How effective, in your opinion, are they in Russian conditions?

Are the practical measures described above used by US firms to improve management?

7. In what cases is the participation of employees in enterprise management most appropriate? Explain and give examples.

8. List the main forms of employee participation in enterprise management. Give examples from your practice.

9. Name the shadow sides of a rigid control system. Bring

10.Responsibility of the manager for management decisions. Definition and types of responsibility.

11. Controlling tasks.

12.Explain the meaning of specific humanism. What is its special significance for Russian conditions?

13.Name the reasons for the crisis of confidence in scientific expertise.

14.Indicate the reasons for the special responsibility of scientists working in the field of genetics.

15.The main advantages and disadvantages of involving personnel in the development of management decisions. In what situations is it strongly recommended to involve personnel in the development of management decisions?

16. Formulate the Golden Rule of Morality and Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

17. The place of ethics in business.

18. Main types of unethical behavior in business. Give examples from Tomsk reality.

19. Why is it better for business in the long run?

Is it advisable to fight to improve framework conditions rather than take the path of circumventing restrictions?

There are two groups of errors when making decisions: 1. Subjective errors. These include the following errors.

1.1. Natural (inevitable): in forecasting market trends, possible actions competitors, demand, etc. in assessments of the situation in the organization, product quality, employee abilities, etc. unforeseen, but in principle foreseeable events, consequences of one’s own actions, etc. 1.2. Prejudice: rejection of the transition from the “order-execution” management model to the “coordination of interests” management model; “everything that cannot be calculated is nonsense” - prejudice against qualitative methods incentives, employee evaluation, etc. dislike of behavioral technologies, for example, the use of rules, techniques for conducting commercial negotiations, teamwork, conflict resolution, etc. attitude towards working on strategy as an absolutely impractical activity; underestimated real employees' potential; fear of delegating responsibility to their subordinates. 1.3. Ignorance: the pattern of changes in the stages of development of organizations; methods of stimulating job functions; modern motivational systems; methods of analyzing situations; management technologies. 1.4. Inability: formulate the goals of your company; bring company-wide goals to the goals of departments and employees; calculate your decisions for feasibility; plan multivariately; ensure the actual implementation of decisions; use individual characteristics workers. 1.5. Dysfunctional tendencies: to self-centrism, i.e. pulling the maximum number of decisions and problems onto oneself; demotivating leadership style, i.e. emphasis on emphasizing the omissions of employees, rather than on evaluating achievements; “information greed” - the desire to know and control everything in the organization; duplication of order, when managers issue tasks that repeat job descriptions, regulations on departments, etc.; a tendency to give tasks, arrange proceedings “over the head” of subordinate managers; overloading the best workers according to the principle of “loading on the one who is lucky”; 1.6. Managerial illusions: faith in the infallibility of one’s decisions, the conviction that the main reasons for failures in management are low performance discipline, external circumstances, and not one’s own miscalculations; the cult of material incentives, reducing all motivation to additional payments, bonuses, bonuses, reluctance to “turn on” a more complex system staff motivation; a tendency to see the reasons for their difficulties primarily outside, and not within the organization; exaggeration of the loyalty factor of nearby employees when selecting and evaluating them, etc.;

2. Objective errors. 2.1. Errors in the organizational component of activities: creation or selection of a knowledge base; selection or creation, as well as replenishment of a database; selection of a scheme for organizing the management process; selection and (or) development organizational structure management (OSU) for the company as a whole and for its divisions; formation or selection of external structures partnerships(stores, dealer network, etc.); selection or preparation of scenarios for holding meetings and conferences; compilation of data on partners and clients; organization of information intelligence; 2.2. Errors in the economic component of activity: development and implementation of a business plan as a whole and its divisions; selection or development of methods and means of moral and material incentives for personnel; selection or development of a method for minimizing the company’s tax base; selection or development of a price structure for products. 2.3. Errors in the technological component of activities development or selection of technologies for managing an organization and its divisions; selection, purchase and installation of organizational, information and other equipment, as well as software; selection of methods for studying sales markets and sales; selection or development of methods in the development and implementation of SD; development or purchase of a security system for information, document flow, personnel and organization. Mistakes when choosing a methodology for selecting and placing personnel: selection and placement of personnel; compiling a list of management functions and choosing methods and distribution; compiling a list of goals and objectives, as well as means and methods for their implementation; choosing a system for your own development of technological advances aimed at developing production; choosing or developing your own standards for the system management and production. Errors in the social component of activities: selection or development of a methodology for forming social groups; selection or development of a methodology for personnel assessment; selection or development of a methodology for forming the production potential of employees; selection or development of a methodology for managing contradictions; development of a methodology for internal professional training Errors in the legal component of activities: development and implementation of the terms of transactions and contracts; development and adjustment of the company’s statutory and registration documents; development and implementation of the company’s accounting policies; development and implementation legal policy relationships with clients and partners.

Basic properties of the external environment

The main properties of the external environment include: Volume is determined by the number of elements of the external environment, which the company must first take into account when developing and implementing management decisions. There are three levels of volume: large (9/10), medium (2/3), and small (1/3). Complexity is determined by the labor costs of material and intellectual resources for processing the required number of elements of the external environment. There are three levels of complexity: high, medium and low. The mobility (P) of the external environment is determined by the rate of artificial or natural change or update of the values ​​of the parameters of its elements: P=K/T, where: K – number of changed or updated parameter values; T – calendar time of changes or updates (month, year, 10 years).

High and low mobility are distinguished. Constantly high mobility has a bad effect on the state of affairs of the company. Very low mobility holds back objectively necessary progressive changes. Uncertainty is characterized by incompleteness or inaccuracy of information about the current and future state of elements of the external environment. It is due to the unreliability of the source of information, errors in its processing, etc.

Communication skills are characterized by the level of relations between the company and external environment. There are three levels of communication skills: full interaction; preferential interaction; preferential opposition.

SD efficiency matrix

The matrix of management effectiveness is presented in the form of interaction between levels of uncertainty and the nature of management activities. Stable management activities are characterized by the implementation of standard procedures under weak disturbing influences of external and internal environment.The corrective nature of management activities is used under moderate disturbing influences of the external and internal environment, when the manager has to change (correct) key processes in the company. Innovative management activities are characterized by the constant search and implementation of new processes and technologies in the company for achieving high competitiveness. Area A 1 and B 1 – eff resh occupy a larger place, because with a stable and corrective nature of the activity, the manager will make reasonable decisions with a minimal negative risk of implementation. IN 1 - deterministic (old, known to everyone) information will slow down the process of making effective decisions. B 2 and B 2 – eff resh, because this level goes well with Levels of Uncertainty corrective and innovative nature of management activities. A 3 – neeff resh, because high level uncertainty is not combined with the stable nature of management activity.

A4 B4 B4

ultra-high solutions ineffective

there is no decision

A3 B3 B3

high ineffective effective

solutions solutions

A2 B2 C2

average effective effective

solutions solutions

A1 B1 C1

low effective effective ineffective

solutions solutions solutions

Character

Stable Corrective Innovative managerial

Activities

Rice. 6.10. RUR efficiency matrix (A 2, B 3, C 4 – transition areas)

AT 3 - this level is well suited to the innovative nature of management activities, effective solutions.

A 4, B 4 - An ultra-high level of uncertainty creates ineffective decisions or a complete absence of decisions, because Difficult to perceive, unreliable information significantly complicates making the right decisions.

AT 4 - believe that super-efficient solutions can be formed, since the abundance of confusion can lead to new ideas for processing them.

The given matrix determines the conditions for obtaining effective SD, comfort and confidence in the correctness of the development and implementation of SD.

The influence of panic on UR

State of panic– this is a short-term loss of logic in a person’s mental activity when preparing and making a decision. Illogical thinking can lead to unpredictable conclusions or actions. A person in a state of panic is very dangerous to others and to himself. Panic- a component of human stress. Stress defined as a state or process of increased nervous tension due to the presence of stressful or exceptional situations that cause fear. Stress has three main parts panic itself; meaningful activity;

developing conclusions or actions.

The influence of panic on the stages of RUR. The impact of panic can be considered in three stages:

When developing and making a decision: characterizes the professionalism of the future solution. The development of a solution involves the participation of both specialists in economic, technological and other fields of activity, as well as heads of relevant departments of the organization. Increasing the number of workers involved in developing the solution reduces the impact of panic and may even eliminate it completely;

When executing a decision: the basis for panic may be inconsistency real conditions fulfillment as planned;

as a result of the implementation of the decision: the basis for panic can be the direct and indirect negative consequences of the already implemented decision in the economic, social, environmental and other areas. Reducing the likelihood of panic is facilitated by the decision’s compliance with current legislation and the organization’s statutory documents, obtaining certificates and acts of independent