Decision making

Decision making are a significant aspect of critical thinking (west, toplak, & stanovich, 2008). There is some indication that this can be taught, which benefits those learning how to make appropriate and the best decisions in various situations (nokes &hacker, 2007). They make political decisions; personal decisions, including medical choices, romantic decisions, and career decisions; and financial decisions, which may also include some of the other kinds of decisions and judgments. Quite often, the decision making process is fairly specific to the decision being made. Some choices are simple and seem straight forward, while others are complex and require a multi-step approach to making the decisions. The present paper will address decision making, in the context of types of decisions people make, factors that influence decision making, several heuristics commonly researched and utilized in the process of decision making. Further, the paper will explore what happens after the decision is made, as well as how present decisions impact future behavior and decision making. Finally, summary comments will be offered, with implications for future research and practical application of teaching decision making skills in teens.
In fact,the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Most models of problem solving and decision making include at least four phases (e. ,bransford & stein, 1984; dewey, 1933; polya, 1971): 1) an input phase in which aproblem is perceived and an attempt is made to understand the situation or problem; 2) aprocessing phase in which alternatives are generated and evaluated and a solution isselected; 3) an output phase which includes planning for and implementing the solution;and 4) a review phase in which the solution is evaluated and modifications are made, ifnecessary. Most researchers describe the problem-solving/decision-making process asbeginning with the perception of a gap and ending with the implementation and evaluationof a solution to fill that gap. Each phase of the process includes specific steps to be completed before moving to thenext phase. These steps will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper. Although there are a variety of ways to consider individual differences relative toproblem solving and decision making, this paper will focus on personality type andtemperament as measured by the mbti.
Decision making are commonly cited by business experts, including the following: limited organizational capacity; limited information; the costliness of analysis; interdependencies between fact and value; the openness of the system(s) to be analyzed; and the diversity of forms on which business decisions actually arise. Moreover, time constraints, personal distractions, low levels of decision making skill, conflict over business goals, and interpersonal factors can also have a deleterious impact on the decision making capacities of a small (or large) business. A second category of difficulties is captured in a number of common pitfalls of the decision procedure. One such pitfall is "decision avoidance psychosis," which occurs when organizations put off making decisions that need to be made until the very last minute. A second problem is decision randomness. This process was outlined in the famous paper called "a garbage can model of organizational choice" by cohen, march and olsen. They argued that organizations have four roles or vectors within them: problem knowers (people who know the difficulties the organization faces): solution providers (people who can provide solutions but do not know the problems); resource controllers (people who do not know problems and do not have solutions but control the allocation of people and money in the organization) and a group of "decision makers looking for work" (or decision opportunities). For effective decision making, all these elements must be in the same room at the same time. In reality, most organizations combine them at random, as if tossing them into a garbage can. Decision drift is another malady that can strike at a business with potentially crippling results. This term, also sometimes known as the abilene paradox in recognition of a famous model of this behavior, refers to group actions that take place under the impression that the action is the will of the majority, when in reality, there never really was a decision to take that action. Decision coercion, also known as groupthink, is another very well known decision problem. In this flawed decision making process, decisions are actually coerced by figures in power.
Decision making are included on the council meeting agenda. Generally items are raised by council's administration as a result of interaction with either individual residents, groups within the community, staff or a combination of these. Elected members also can request that an item be placed on theâ  agenda for consideration. In some instances proposals may be referred to the local communityâ for their views. Many of the day to day administrative decisions however are made by council staff in accordance with existing policies and procedures. Policies, however are subject to change and it is the elected members as a body who ultimately decide council policy. Communication between the community and the council improves decision making and is valued by the council as it enables them to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of the local community. Members of the council are accountable to the community for the decisions they make. The local government act 1999 provides for any individual to ask for a review of a decision made by the council, its employees or other persons acting on behalf on council.
Decision making are synonymous when it comes to studying the brain’s highly evolved frontal cortex. Neuroscientists know and still acknowledge that this part of the brain plays a key role in all higher order cognitive skills, but many now question a long-held assumption that this part of the brain is in complete control of decision making. Research studies taking place by neuroscientists and psychologists across the world are attempting to unravel the mechanics of decision making, and discover how it functions within the brain’s neuronal circuitry and complex networks. Ray dolan, professor of neuropsychiatry at university college london (ucl), and director of the wellcome trust centre for neuroimaging at ucl, said that instead of executive functioning, he prefers to use the term “parliament of the mind. The frontal cortex as the body’s parliament. , dolan explained that neuroscientific research today points to neural systems within the brain that control executive functioning rather than relegating these higher order skills functionally to one brain area or structure.
Decision making are two of the most important activities in which humans engage. When we don't, the consequences can range from minor inconvenience to catastrophic loss. One of the contexts in which humans have most systematically and most successfully developed their capacities for good reasoning is scientific inquiry. Science is also extremely important to our own decision making as we rely on the results of scientific inquiry. Hence, we will try to understand how science works and how reliable its results are. What makes for a good piece of reasoning in science?. Can we ever be absolutely certain of the truth or falsity of a scientific hypothesis?. How objective is observation? how can we avoid making mistakes in perception?. What might we learn from systematic observation?. What can we learn from discovering correlations between variables? how can we avoid being misled by illusory correlations?.
Decision making are important in helping us understand the rationale of firm actions. Analyzing an organization's actions through various lenses, such as a legitimacy lens or a managerial interpretation lens, we can better recognize the reasoning behind the actions. With regard to adoption of work-life initiatives, the corporate decision making theories allow us to delineate why the adoption occurred. Although the rationale prompting firm adoption varies by theory, research findings specifying particular characteristics have been remarkably consistent. Competitors and size appear to have the most influence. Large firms are more likely than small firms to offer work-life programs, and organizations in the same industry and especially in the same geographic region are more likely to provide policies . When work-life issues are perceived by management to be linked to performance, the organization is more likely to adopt supporting programs. The proportion of females in the labor force has also been examined with somewhat surprising results. Industries with a high percentage of women in the labor pool are more likely to be comprised of organizations offering work-life initiatives; however, given the workforce makeup of each individual organization, findings have been mixed.
Decision making are entrusted to various committees. Union council exists as the primary representative body of the union, but general meetings & referenda have even more authority, as they allow all students to take part in the process of making decisions. All committees are accountable to the union membership through council and general meetings.
  we make decisions about who we trust in work settings based on a number of factors - one often being proximity.   with social media, proximity is often superseded in the trust factor by relativity or like-mindedness.   is this person knowledgeable? credible? believable?  do we share the same views and networks - on or offline?. Because belonging to a peer network or online community requires us to perform publicly, to share our background by way of a profile, to display our professional connections and networks, trustworthiness is in many cases more tangibly determined.   peer groups can now be formed by idea sharing and virtual collaboration as easily as the proximity based groups that often form in office settings. Enter the era of business-to-person (b2p) communications and the emergence of social media peer groups (smpg). Through the use of professional networks and online communities, decision-makers are connecting and collaborating with peers, experts and colleagues far and wide in an on demand environment, about the issues that keep them up at night.    the impact of these far-reaching business networks is becoming clearer every day as millions of consumers, partners, suppliers and businesses discuss and share their professional experiences with each other with increasing levels of trust and reliance.   it has long been known as truth that peer endorsement is the single greatest decision-making accelerant.   through social media, peer influence cycles are happening at a velocity never before seen, and in many ways, companies are losing the ability to control their messages.   they need to get back into the relationship cycle but on the terms set forth by the smpg.   participating in the smpg relationship requires a behavior change on the part of organizations - one dominated by valuable content and genuine contributions, transparent honesty and a commitment to follow where the decision-maker wants to lead.