3.4. DEMYSTIFYNG HOUSEHOLDS IDENTITIES AND BEHAVIORS
3.4.4. Decision Making in General Human Systems
Decision making thrives everywhere in human systems. Before considering decision making in household systems, this subsection first notes the general character of human systems as far as decision making is concerned. This will then give way to specific focus on households as informal human systems.
Human systems‟ plans, budgets and outcomes are guided by decisions. According to March (1991), individuals and groups make decisions based on the need to optimize results. The optimization motivation, as far as March is concerned, is often guided by some extents of irrationality-infact, he points “…numerous limits to rationality in decision making”
(1991:96). The theories of choice suggest that human decisions are based on (i) knowledge of alternatives (ii) knowledge of consequences (iii) sequencing or ordering of preferences and (iv) a decision rule (see March, 1991).
The first author to interrogate decision making, Simon, disagrees with March‟s optimization motivation, arguing that decisions are rather made on the basis of satisficing (a decision making strategy which aims for satisfactory or adequate results, rather than optimal results) – what McKinnon calls bounded rationality7 (McKinnon, 2003). The satisficing position
7 Emphasis added by this author
66 assumes that organizations are highly complex, and that leaders possess limited cognitive abilities of all factors (McKinnon, 2003) so much so that they cannot make fully rational decisions.
Focusing on the object rather than the subject of decision making, Hickson, et al., (1986, cited in Miller, et al., 1996) point out that decisions are either sporadic, or fluid, or even others, constrained. These authors further contend that constricted decisions are a mixture of sporadic and fluid, except that they incline towards a single decision making person, who potentially controls the resources-but then for what motivation?
Arguably, the motivation behind decision making potentially determines the nature and character of decisions. Cooperates for example, make decisions on the basis of results (Wallace and Rijamampianina, 2005)-and specifically to remain progressively competitive.
Corporate decisions therefore operate from the premise that “competitive advantage is not the result of the yearly strategic planning and budget exercise; it is determined daily” (Ibid, 2005:1).
More on motivations, Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret, (1976) present three elements involved in decision making which are (a) decision making model, (b) solution search behaviors and (c) configurations which guide the decision making model. First, the authors present the decision making model as follows.
Table 2: Motivations which Shape Decision Making Component Description
Recognition A stimulus or stimuli which has generated a crisis, opportunity, or threat is recognized
Diagnosis An assessment of the situation, as well as examination of information sources to describe the issue is identified.
Search and Design An investigation of ready-made solutions is made, in addition to devising new solutions.
Evaluation On the evaluation level, a solution is chosen through the use of judgement, bargaining and analysis. This is a rigorous process, which looks into
67 alternative solutions.
Authorization Authorisation of the recommended solution is made Source: McKinnon, (2003)
On solution search behaviors, Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret, (1976) provide four types of behaviors namely, (a) memory search (b) passive search-which is essentially waiting for a solution to appear (c) trap search which places solution search to others and (d) active search.
The authors then identify path configurations as outlined below.
Table 3: Path Configurations Configuration Summary
Simple impasse A solution is blocked in debate.
Political design To achieve adoption of a solution, political manoeuvring is necessary.
Basic search Involves finding the best ready-made solution.
Modified search Ready-made solutions need to be modified to find an acceptable solution.
Basic design Design process results in often complex and innovative solutions.
Block design Identical to basic design but resistance from outside groups results in a blocked decision process.
Dynamic design Activity flow becomes very complex due to large investment, complex design and likelihood of interruptions due to new requirements.
Source: McKinnon, (2003)
Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret‟s decision making model (1976), search options and path configurations (1976) reflect three fundamental faults. First, they are normative –thus they explain how things should be –rather than positivist –how things are. Second, these authors‟ methodology is applicable to formal organizations with a clear chain of command, a common objective, and with resources as well as the interest in finding a solution to an issue.
68 The model thus eliminates less structured or informal organizations such as a households or small businesses which although have a chain of command, they do not necessarily have the resources or the time to rigorously investigate a solution. Also, crisis, threats and opportunities are too common for households and small businesses to follow Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret‟s (1976) seemingly meticulous methodology. These authors could thus be charged with large organization bias. Third, the noted methodology is based on a cause and effect theory, which Ackoff (1997) among other system thinking theorists have already placed them under past era and labelled them as ineffective methods of analysis. The cause and effect trend is identifiable, considering Mintzberg et al.,‟s (1976) position, that political persuasion is a fundamental factor in decision making. What these authors imply is that decisions are easily predictable, and are „possible‟ due to some vested interests.