Главная страница | Контакты | Случайная страница Автомобили Астрономия Биология География Дом и сад Другие языки Другое Информатика История Культура Литература Логика Математика Медицина Металлургия Механика Образование Охрана труда Педагогика Политика Право Психология Религия Риторика Социология Спорт Строительство Технология Туризм Физика Философия Финансы Химия Черчение Экология Экономика Электроника

Models of decision-making

Scholars speak about two broad categories of models of decision-making: rational and nonrational models.

Rational decisions are choices based on judgment of preferences and outcomes. They are not always turn out best and they do not eliminate the possibility of failure.

In nonrational models choices do not result from the deliberate balancing of pros and cons. These models share the assumption that the mix of rules and participants shape choices, and that decisions result from the varying (though not necessarily accidental) mix of ingredients. Both rational and nonrational models of the decision process are products of value-neutral social science. Values enter rational decision models only in the form of preferences, but they are generally defined in terms of self-interest.

E. Additional Reading

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION-MAKING

Decision-making in public administration is a much debated subject. For one thing, there is confusion about the vocabulary. Expressions such as strategic planning, policy making and decision-making are used indiscriminately and interchangeably. It is generally agreed that a decision involves a choice among alternative courses of action.

The varying roles of administrators add to the difficulty of understanding decision-making. In most developing countries, administrators describe their role in terms of implementing the laws and policies enunciated by the Government. Different points of view about decision-making also complicate attempts at generalization.

1. Decisions are the result of the dynamics of a highly complex social phenomenon in which different values, interests, institutions and individuals interact in a variety of ways.

1. An elite makes the decisions. It may include persons inside or outside government.

2. An inspired and charismatic leader makes the decisions.

3. Technocrats make the decisions, supposedly based on some concept of utility.

All administrators are decision-makers – to varying extents and for different levels of issues.

Leadership

Leadership is the direction and guiding of other participants in the organization.

Leadership differs in degree. Transactional leaders exchange rewards for services. They guide subordinates in recognizing and clarifying roles and tasks. They also help subordinates understand and satisfy their own needs and desires. Transformational leaders change the relationship of the subordinate and the organization. They encourage subordinates to go well beyond their original commitments and expectations. These leaders have the ability to reach the souls of others to raise human consciousness.

Leadership is required for major changes and new directions, and without leadership government easily stagnates. When things go well or poorly we credit or blame the leader. We look for leadership in candidates for high office. Over many years, investigators have hoped to identify leadership traits. It is extremely difficult to know precisely what traits such diverse political leaders as Napoleon Bonaparte, Luther King, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Indira Ghandi, and Adolf Hitler shared in common. Yet many researches have attempted to identify universal characteristics of leadership and the following classification of the leadership traits is suggested:

1) capacity (intelligence, verbal facility, originality, judgment);

2) achievement (scholarship, knowledge, athletic accomplishments);

3) responsibility (dependability, initiative, persistence, aggressiveness, self-confidence, desire to excel);

4) participation (activity, sociability, cooperation, adaptability, humor);

5) status (socioeconomic position, popularity).

Particular traits are neither necessary nor sufficient to become a leader. There are brilliant thinkers and talkers who are not leaders, and there are people who are not very intelligent and not blessed with verbal facility who are obvious leaders.

Some investigators emphasize the situational character of leadership. The ingredients of this parameter of leadership are the following:

· status, or position power – the degree to which the leader is enabled to get the group members to comply with and accept his or her leadership;

· leader-member relations – acceptance of the leader by members and their loyalty to him or her;

· task-structure – the degree to which the jobs of the followers are well defined;

· ability to recognize the most critical needs for organization members at the moment (physiological needs for food, sleep, etc. or safety needs for freedom; needs for love).

Defining leadership is a very difficult task but rejecting the study of leadership would impoverish our understanding of governing.