A Model of
Executive
Decision-Making
Robert Shaw
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
PREFACE
This model of decision-making for executives is designed for
use when you implement policy.
The model was developed through a consideration of actual problems
identified by managers.
The model applies to complex decisions that would normally
be taken by senior managers. It considers aspects of decision-making such as ethics,
political and institutional constraints, and the limitations of rules; and
thereby illuminates the process of decision-making well beyond the
"information for" stage.
This approach to decision-making does not prescribe
"correct" conclusions in particular cases, but rather it allows
alternative perspectives to be considered within a structured format.
The development and validation of this model has been
recorded in the academic literature. It is a “generic” model designed to cover
policy implementation and course members may wish to develop this model to
address more precisely the specific decisions taken in their own organisations.
This booklet is designed for use during courses on
decision-making. Hence, it is for
managers who have worked through "The Customs’ Case”, and understand the
terminology of case studies. Having
completed the course, managers may find the booklet a useful reference when
reflecting on difficult decisions.
The project team who developed the model ask that persons
who have not been through the course
refrain from taking photocopies and misrepresenting or misusing the model.
Robert Shaw
Senior
Lecturer
The Open
Polytechnic of New Zealand
CONTENTS Page
SCOPE OF THE MODEL 3
ASPECTS OF DECISION-MAKING 4
USING THE MODEL 5
HOW THE MODEL HELPS 6
ACCOUNTABILITY 6
SUMMARY OF THE MODEL 8
GROUPING OF COMPONENTS 10
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 10
DIAGRAM OF COMPONENTS 11
CONDITIONS 12
FACTS 14
RULES 17
MORALITY 22
OPTIONS 25
RISKS 27
LEARNING AND
USING THE MODEL 29
FURTHER APPLICATIONS 31
CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATION 32
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 33
LAW AND DECISION-MAKING 33
INTRODUCTION
This booklet describes a strategy (model) for executive
decision-making called Administrative Discretionary Justice (ADJ).
"Administrative” because public or company
administration is the context in which we are working. The model is about the implementation of
existing policy.
“Discretionary” because neither legislation nor ministerial
nor executive direction can make our decisions for us. There is scope to
interpret rules and the decision maker is obliged to make judgements.
“Justice” because we are concerned to do the right thing.
The decision must be explicit about moral concepts and we must treat people
morally.
The formal definition of Administrative Discretionary
Justice is: the resolution of the legal,
ethical and practical issues which arise in a situation where an official
acting in a capacity which is, in the final analysis, defined and limited by
government policy, legislation, or organisational policy, makes a just decision
which results in action or inaction which affects other persons.
SCOPE OF THE
MODEL
Most accounts of decision-making advise that there are 5 or
6 steps through which a decision-maker should proceed. One text, for example, lists these:
1. Identify why a decision is needed
2. Gather relevant information
3. Develop criteria for making a good
decision
4. Develop possible solutions.
5. Choose the best solution.
It is difficult to depart from a sequence such as this - it
does not make sense to make the decision until you have decided what are the
facts and the options!
Whilst the business of decision-making is straightforward
enough when described as an orderly sequence of steps, it is quite another
matter to describe how you identify the need for decisions, how
you decide what is relevant and ensure nothing is omitted, how
you examine possible decisions and balance factors when the situation is
complex. The model presented here is
the first move towards answering such questions.
The model was developed by considering a large number of
examples of managerial decision-making in government organisations and the
private sector. The developers tried to
classify the issues that appeared again and again in the dilemmas being faced by senior New Zealand managers
when they tried to implement policy.
These dilemmas were frequently found to arise once the
analysts' work was completed and a draft response to correspondence completed.
The ADJ model provides a systematic approach to decisions which
are made by managers when they have a relatively
specific situation to respond to, a
reasonable amount of time to respond, and are ultimately governed in their
response by rules. The rules are in legislation, bylaws, or other documents.
In some situations that do not conform to these limitations,
the model has been found to be of use - but the approach to decision-making
being described here should not be judged by a consideration of decision-making
in any wider context than that set down.
Managers ought to
look for the wider implications of individual problems, but the present model
is not a model for use in policy or
systems development. Policy development requires quite a different approach to
decision making. Policy development
is about changing the rules.
ASPECTS OF DECISION-MAKING
The model of
decision-making presented here addresses only one aspect of decision-making: it
is restricted to the objective factors
that could be used in the justification
of a decision.
When people make
decisions, what takes place in their heads (the psychology of decision-making)
and the nature of the interaction between the people involved (the “sociology”
of decision-making) can be important but the ADJ model is not concerned with
these matters.
It is important to
understand that the psychology and sociology of decision-making may be
separated from the objective justification of any decision. Understanding this
separation is essential if you are to focus on the qualities of decisions. There will be many paths by which
decision-makers may arrive at the same objective account of a decision. Some paths will be more efficient than
others. Some may depend on creative
insight. Others will be more like a process of elimination by trial and error.
But what is of importance in the present course are the merits of decisions
themselves.
The model for decision-making deliberately ignores the
psychology and sociology of decision-making.
This is for 2 reasons:
· Managers must justify their decisions in an objective manner.
(A chief executive cannot justify a decision to a minister by reference to the
idiosyncratic nature of the ministry officials!)
· Before we can begin to analyse psychological and sociological
approaches to decision-making we need to know what is the goal of these
processes. Most courses on the processes of decision making stumble because
they do not have an adequate account of the objectives of decision-making.
Another way of
stating the point above is to say we are concerned with defining what is excellence in decision outcome and
justification, rather than the efficiency or economy of reaching decisions.
It is outputs, not inputs, that count.
USING THE MODEL
The ADJ model is an
intellectual tool. Like all tools it
can be used inappropriately or abused.
If you have the model in your kit of tools and can produce it when
appropriate and use it to the extent of its capabilities, it will serve you
well. One of your early tasks is to learn when the model is appropriate and
information on that is incorporated into the model.
It is possible
to place too much reliance on a tool, or to let the use of the tool become the
aim of the exercise. The model should
not be allowed to take over and become an end in itself.
Like a tool
the model will help you build, and help to determine your approach to building
- it will not tell you what to build.
Nor will it alone determine the ultimate quality of the structure you
build.
Your judgement
will improve as you practice using the model. Judgement is cognitive ability to
bring complex factors into consideration and to heed them to the appropriate
extent when making decisions.
HOW THE MODEL HELPS
By increasing the confidence of managers in their own
judgement it may possible to minimise their reluctance to take decisions and
increase their willingness to accept responsibility.
The judgement
of managers can be improved. The model will
assist judgement in 4 ways:
· It will make a complex matter more straightforward by making
explicit the issues being considered.
· It will provide a systematic approach to the consideration
of the decision.
· It will enable the issues to be seen in their appropriate
intellectual traditions. This means
managers can be guided to areas of study that will advance their understanding
of the components of decisions.
· It will provide an approach to the testing of alternative
hypotheses to review the robustness of a decision.
The model alone does not miraculously give a person good
judgement. It can improve a manager’s
ability to argue complex, contentious points, but it cannot of itself provide
the answer. Some managers would like a model that leads to decisions as if it
were a computer programme. However, in the decision addressed by the model are
at heart ethical decisions and there is no way that such decision can be made
by an algorithm. If they could be so made, we would not need to development of
judgement.
ACCOUNTABILITY
The model also has a role in the provision of
accountability.
Privately, a manager has the confidence that the decision
made was based on a systematic process.
Publicly, the model provides accountability if controlling officers/managers
and subordinates acknowledge the value of the application of the model, and
agree that it leads to a comprehensive and systematic assessment of decisions.
By displaying a working sheet that shows the application of
the model to a decision, a manager may prove that comprehensive and balanced
consideration was given to the decision.
Mistakes will still occur, and there will be differences of opinion on
the weighting that should be given to particular matters, but with the model an
official will at least be able to prove the work was done: there were examined
reasons for the decision that was made, and all matters that may have had a
bearing on the decision were explicitly considered.
How to
implement policy:
A model -
ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETIONARY JUSTICE
SUMMARY
Definition of Administrative Discretionary Justice: the
resolution of the legal, ethical and practical issues which arise in a
situation where an official acting in a capacity which is, in the final
analysis, defined and limited by government policy, legislation or
organisational policy, makes a just decision which results in action or
inaction which affects other persons.
The model (ADJ) is made up of components. In order for an
official to address an administrative decision adequately, the following
components seem to be logically required:
CONDITIONS
The CONDITIONS of ADJ are those criteria, which must be
satisfied if the model is to be applied.
FACTS
The FACTS of ADJ are the circumstances, constraints, relevant
personal information, and the likely consequences of particular decisions,
which, when taken together, describe a particular case. Consideration of the veracity of facts and
the absence of information falls within this Component.
RULES
The written rules, including precedents, which are relevant
to or "govern" a decision, together with the guidelines intended to
preserve the integrity of the decision-making process, are the RULES of ADJ.
MORALITY
The MORALITY of ADJ requires the consideration of 2 issues:
(1) the moral principles that are held by the organisation or the
decision-maker to be potentially relevant in any application of ADJ (2) the
persons or parties affected (together with an account of how they are affected)
by a potential decision.
OPTIONS
OPTIONS are taken in accordance with the strategy suggested
by the model of ADJ when all the Components of ADJ are systematically
considered and taken into account in reaching conclusions.
RISKS
The tasks within the RISKS Component of ADJ are a
consideration of those matters that may affect the implementation of the
decision once it is made, and the development of practical proposals to assist
with its implementation. The focus is on the risks that are inherent in the
decision, but we must also be mindful of the opportunities presented.
Components contribute to the making of executive decisions
in different ways, but experience shows that at each decision point one or two
components usually dominate the discussion of alternatives being considered.
GROUPING OF COMPONENTS
It is not possible,
or sensible, to prescribe an order in which a decision-maker should proceed to
consider the Components - decisions are too diverse and components interact in
a variety of ways.
The Components
may be conveniently grouped to indicate their relationship to each other.
CONDITIONS
stands alone and it is the first Component to be considered in a decision. CONDITIONS outlines the criteria that must
be satisfied if the model is to be applied.
If you wish to know if a situation is one in which you can usefully
apply the model, ask whether the CONDITIONS are satisfied. The other Components contribute to the
making of the decision or to the development of an approach to its
implementation.
The Components
FACTS and RULES deal with factual matters of different kinds.
The Component
MORALITY deals with concerns of ethics; it examines the same concerns (i.e.
moral or ethical) from different perspectives.
Whilst the
Component RISKS, although it relates to possible events after the decision has
been made, needs to be assessed before the decision is made.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
In all
Components there are questions relating to financial or economic matters that
may be asked about a decision.
To enable the
systematic examination of economic matters apart from other matters, these
questions are marked with an asterisk (*).
It is not
recommended that economic matters be divorced from other considerations in
practical decision-making, but for the purpose of teaching the model it is
sometimes desirable to do so.
THE MODEL: How
to implement policy
ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETIONARY JUSTICE
“Do I have a problem ...”
____________________________________________________________
Definition
The CONDITIONS
of ADJ are those criteria that must be satisfied if the model is to be applied.
____________________________________________________________
Key Questions
1 What are the prima facie
facts?
2 Am I
the appropriate manager to make the decision?
3
What decision options
immediately suggest themselves?
4
Is this clearly
policy implementation, or is it policy development?
___________________________________________________________
Notes
· The CONDITIONS Component asks the decision-maker to address
rapidly some of the matters that are exhaustively addressed when the model is
applied.
· Prima facie is there a decision to be made, and who is the appropriate
person, in which organisation, to make the decision?
· What opportunities for policy development does the situation
offer?
___________________________________________________________
Further Questions
1 Which are the essential facts that
require that a decision be made? (Is
this situation almost
completely
rule governed?)
2 Is this the appropriate organisation
or department? (appropriate to statutory functions or other directives.)
3 Are the authorities or delegations to
hand? Has the authority been given or
is it assumed?
4 Is it within my personal competence to
make this decision? (Do I accept this responsibility? Should the decision be passed "upstairs" or
"downstairs"?)
5 Are
there other organisations or managers within my organisation with whom I should
consult before making the decision?
6 Is the
information provided in an adequate form for decision-making? (e.g. is the
presentation of a report sensible and helpful?)
7 How
much time should I (or my subordinates) spend on the decision?
8 What
implications are there for policy or systems development? Should steps be taken
immediately to begin development work?
9 Is
economic analysis of options necessary before a decision can be reached? *
*Economic
Questions
“We
know that ...”
_________________________________________________________
Definition
The FACTS of
ADJ are the circumstances, constraints, relevant personal information, which,
when taken together, describe a particular case. Consideration of veracity of facts and the absence of information
falls within this Component.
_________________________________________________________
Key Questions
1 What
are the facts of the case? Which are
the essential facts that affect the decision?
2 Are
there facts relating to my organisation and current situation which must be
taken into account?
3 What is
the status of each statement? (What is absolutely certain, probably true, open
to dispute, hearsay, an allegation, not supported by evidence, supported by
evidence, provided by someone with a vested interest?)
4 What
information is needed but not available?
_________________________________________________________
Notes
·
Assembling facts,
questioning their veracity, and providing evidence to establish facts where
this is necessary, are all tasks within this Component. The establishing of facts may be a complex
and difficult task.
·
Experienced
decision-makers prefer to have all the facts and decide for themselves what is
relevant.
·
When facts relate to
moral issues it may be difficult but important to separate facts from
judgements and perceptions.
·
Some of the facts
will be defined by institutional or other constraints. These may be government or company policy,
the impossibility of adequately consulting before a decision is made, the
likely press or public reaction to certain decisions, and the limitation of
finance.
________________________________________________________
Further Questions
10 Who
initiated the need for a decision?
11 Is the
initiator a “special” person? (Minister, member of the board, MP, member of a
political or special interest group, from a particular cultural group,
illiterate, known crank). If so, what
does this imply?
12 Is the decision
a review of an earlier decision? If so,
who made the original decision, what is known of their ability and interests,
the context of the original decision, the outcome of the original decision?
13 Is there
a fact that should be brought to the attention of Head Office, a senior
official, chief executive or Minister?
14 How might
further information be pursued?
15 Do
cultural differences significantly affect my view of the relevant facts? Are
there particular professional
perspectives dominating my view/ interpretation of the facts? Is this appropriate?
16 Which
facts are clearly relevant to the decision and which are clearly irrelevant?
17 How are
those facts of disputed relevance related to the decision? (This question links FACTS to other Components).
18 For
decisions involving equipment, are there minimal technical specifications that
must be met?
19* Are there
budgetary limits within which the decision-maker must work?
20* What
costs or returns may be predicted regarding alternative decision outcomes?
21* Is the
decision likely to have a significant effect on company/departmental profits or
expenditure levels?
22* What for the various groups involved,
are the tax implications of the
likely decisions?
* Economic Questions
____________________________________________________________
Check: Has the real problem been
identified in CONDITIONS?
“The
book states ...”
________________________________________________________
Definition
The
written rules, including precedents, which are relevant to or “govern” a
decision, together with the guidelines intended to preserve the integrity of
the decision-making process, are the RULES of ADJ.
________________________________________________________
Key Questions
1 What
rules are directly related to the prima facie facts?
2 What is
the status of the rules? (Statute, organisational mission or objective
statement, accepted manual, information precedent, direction from superior.)
3 Are the
procedures being used to arrive at the decision appropriate for the matter
being considered? (Perhaps a formal hearing would be more appropriate or
opportunity should be given for an interview.)
4 Have
the procedures of natural justice been considered? (Have interested parties had
a chance to be heard before they are adversely affected by a decision.)
________________________________________________________
Notes
· Formal rules may be found in a constitution, in legislation,
accredited mission statements or statements of
organisational objectives, accredited manuals, by-laws, informally drafted
instructions or written precedents.
· Where verbal instructions are of such importance that they
assume the mantle of rules, they should be written down.
· The determination of which rules are to be applied in a
particular case and the status of those rules is an important part of
decision-making. Rules may be altered,
and it is important to know what procedures should be followed to have rules
changed and to know when to initiate the process.
· The relationship between various formal rules is
important. The authority of government organisations is ultimately
derived from parliamentary
statute. How the manuals produced in
organisations relate to acts and regulations is a critical matter. Organisations of any size with complex tasks
inevitably operate with derivative rules; the danger is that over the years
these rules may be developed into statements that are inconsistent with the
original authority.
· Even when rules appear to be straightforward there is
frequently a large element of discretion in their application. The identification of the existence and
nature of the discretion is an important part of decision-making. The appropriate use of discretion is a sign
of the maturity of a decision-maker.
· A system of public administrative decision-making ought to
conform to standards of independence, impartiality and procedure. A request for a review of any administrative
action may be made to the high court or the Ombudsman. However, the present Component appears in
ADJ not because officials may be held accountable but because we ought to be
concerned to conform to the highest practical standards when making decisions
which affect people.
· Broadly speaking, the supervision of administration by the
courts extends to ensuring that administrators do not exceed their statutory
powers or exercise powers in bad faith or for an improper purpose, or on
irrelevant or extraneous considerations, or without taking into account
relevant considerations. In exceptional
circumstances an administrative decision may be invalidated on the grounds that
it is grossly unreasonable.
· The Ombudsman may reach a conclusion that a discretionary
power has been exercised for an improper purpose, on irrelevant grounds, or on
the taking into account of irrelevant considerations, or that in the case of a
decision made in the exercise of any discretionary power, reasons should have
been given for the decision.
· In personal cases particularly, issues of natural justice
are paramount. Such issues are raised
in this Component.
___________________________________________________________
Further Questions
23 Have the precedents
been determined by a higher authority or at the decision-maker's level? Are all relevant precedents identified?
24 Is the
determination of discretion regarding these rules within the jurisdiction and
competence of the decision-maker?
25 Are there
facts that indicate situations which fall outside the rules? If so, what are these facts?
26 Do the
relevant rules have explicit interpretation?
27
Have the relevant rules established precedents?
28 Are there
"informal" rules or practices which have developed over a period of
time that need to be taken into account or actively countered?
29 Do we have
enough rules?
30 Have there
been attempts to reconcile conflicts between any particular rules that are in
conflict?
31 Which potential
decisions are ruled out by rules?
32 Do rules
set down procedures to follow when reaching decisions?
33 Do rules
set down procedures to follow when implementing any potential decisions?
34 Should a
rule be examined with a view to its modification?
35 Can the
officials involved in the decision be shown to be impartial and disinterested?
36 Is there
adequate time available for due consideration of the case?
37 What
factors are likely to force a hasty decision?
What can be done about these factors?
38 Is the
decision to be taken in an adequately public and "open" way?
39 If the
proposed decision is implemented what courses of action are open to those who
may be dissatisfied or disadvantaged?
40 Are all the
relevant formal rules being made available to interested parties?
41 Where does
the onus of proof lie with regard to factual matters?
42 What
standards of proof are required for factual matters that may be in doubt?
43 What standards of proof are required for
conclusions or decisions?
(e.g., in criminal cases, reasonable doubt; in civil cases, the balance of
probabilities.)
44* Do Treasury
regulations or legislation require specific procedures? (e.g., tendering procedures.)
45* Is
sufficient provision made for hearing the case of parties who would be
adversely affected financially by a likely decision?
46* Are there
Treasury regulations or company financial management guidelines to be
considered?
47* Has any
proposed expenditure been correctly classified into its budget component?
48* Are there
rules that indicate to which part of the organisation any profits will accrue?
* Economic Questions
___________________________________________________________
Check: What conflicts are there between rules?
What
conflicts are there between RULES and MORALITY?
“We know in our
hearts …”
___________________________________________________________
Definition
The MORALITY of
ADJ has 2 issues to be considered (1) the moral principles which are held by
the organisation or the decision-maker to be potentially relevant in any
application of ADJ (2) the persons or parties affected (together with an
account of how they are affected) by a potential decision.
____________________________________________________________
Key Questions
1 What are the principles of morality that
should
be consciously considered by managers
when
the decision is made?
2 Who are the parties affected by
potential decisions?
____________________________________________________________
Notes
· Any principle
which deals with or affects people is a moral principle.
·
Institutions develop
their own "ethos of service" and this may provide many of the moral
precepts. Examples include patterns of
consultation or notification, protection of colleagues' reputations or fields
of operation. Sociologists talk of
organisations having their own unique culture.
·
Other moral principles
may come from government policy or society at large. For example, positive compensation for cultural difference,
concern for the maintenance of competition, or concern for subordinates.
·
In some very serious
circumstances the personal morality of the official may be important. The Nuremberg trials showed this.
·
The arguments
concerning how persons ought to be affected by potential decisions are
raised by this Component.
·
Officials in some
circumstances ought to attempt to view decisions from the perspective of
others, e.g., clients, Ministers, members of minority groups.
___________________________________________________________
Further
Questions
49 Should I inform colleagues of my choices and actions?
(The moral
principle here is that I ought to inform colleagues
of matters that may
affect them.)
50 Should we be concerned with reputations? Are there
aspects of
potential decisions that may reflect poorly on
colleagues or
organisations?
51 Is the department/company acting with integrity?
52 Are there matters of cultural difference
to be taken into account? (The moral principle is that relevant differences
between people should be taken into account when making decisions.)
53 Is compassion appropriate and possible?
54 Will any potential decision affect
religious or spiritual sensibilities?
55 Is there a public interest being
disadvantaged by the decision proposed?
56 For each stakeholder what are the likely
advantages and disadvantages of each potential decision? How will they view the decision?
57 Are the parties sufficiently able to
advocate their own interest? (e.g., children, persons unaware that decisions
are being taken, language, cultural minorities.) Should special provisions be made for such parties to be heard?
58 Are there conflicts of interests involved
in this case? What are they? How do they occur?
59* Does the likely decision accord with the
company’s / government’s economic objectives?
60* What stakeholders will be financially
affected? Is it possible to state the
financial effects?
61* What is the likely financial cost/benefit
to the taxpayer/shareholder?
62* Is the decision proposed in accordance with
accepted standards of business probity?
* Economic Considerations
__________________________________________________________
“The options are ...”
____________________________________________________________
Definition
OPTIONS are
all the alternative decisions available, and it is in this Component that the
major conclusions are reached.
____________________________________________________________
Key
Questions
1 What are the options?
Have all the possible
alternative options
been considered?
2 Is each option logical?
Is each option fair?
3 Would each option be in accordance with
the weight of
evidence?
__________________________________________________________
Notes
· It makes sense to
begin consideration of the decision by writing
down the options that prima facie are
open.
· Decisions about the
issue to be decided, and decisions about
how to implement the substantive decisions have to be made frequently.
·
In making a decision,
concern must be given to logic and the balancing of competing interests or
principles. Judgement is improved when
it is clear what considerations are being judged.
·
The wider
implications of the particular case should be considered with a view towards
policy or systems development.
Decisions reporting this work should be recorded and passed forward to
the appropriate person.
·
Some decision-makers
are afraid of possible consequences if they do not make a decision or if they
make a particular decision. Such fears may be reasonable or unreasonable. The
fears themselves can always be examined.
____________________________________________________________
Further Questions
63 What decisions are being called for?
64 Are there legitimate ways of avoiding taking less satisfactory
decisions?
65 Has the decision-maker sufficiently distanced psychological matters from matters of principle?
66 Which of the Components and which specific matters related
to those Components
appear to dominate the matter being
decided?
67 Are there decisions which should be taken
regarding the wider implications of the particular case being considered? Should this case be used as an example to be
considered in policy or systems development?
68 Is the situation one where negotiation
between affected parties is appropriate?
69 Is the decision-maker certain that there is
no hidden personal or institutional motive involved?
70 Should an independent review of the
decision be organised before action is taken?
71 Should the decision be cleared with anyone
to protect the decision-maker?
72* Are the financial implications of the
proposed decision being appropriately weighed against other concerns?
* Economic Considerations
“What if …”
____________________________________________________________
Definition
The tasks within the RISKS Component of ADJ are a
consideration of those matters that may affect the implementation of the
decision once it is made and, the development of practical proposals to assist
with its implementation. The focus is on the risks associated with the
decision.
____________________________________________________________
Key Questions
1 What
might go wrong during the implementation of alternative decisions that are
proposed?
2 Are
alternative approaches to implementation available?
3 Have
the recognised problems of implementation been countered by concrete proposals?
___________________________________________________________
Notes
·
The implications
cannot, by definition, be completely assessed before the decision is made. They may sometimes be important in
explaining what went wrong!
·
Good decision-makers
foresee implications, limitations and risks.
·
This Component
requires that the decision-maker considers how the decision will be conveyed to
persons affected.
·
The implementation
may involve a decision to use the psychology of persuasion and the skills
associated with marshalling an
argument. The actual abilities here are
beyond the strategy of ADJ itself.
____________________________________________________________
Further Questions
73 Who should
announce the decision?
74 Are persons
affected by the decision, or with a right to know of the decision, to be told in
an appropriate manner?
75 Will this
decision affect staff relations? Will
all colleagues who may have to respond to repercussions be adequately briefed?
76 Have staff been
warned of possible repercussions?
77 Should the
decision result in a legal challenge, what costs may this entail?
78* Have budget
planners (management/accounts staff) been warned of possible repercussions?
79 How might the
decision or the proposals to implement it be modified to take account of the
implications?
80 Are there people
available to implement the decision?
81 What happens it
people do not co-operate?
82 Does the
decision have training implications?
83* Does the
proposed decision involve assumptions about the availability of money in future
financial years?
84 Are there
contingency plans should awkward questions be asked? (What's your escape
route?)
* Economic
Questions
LEARNING AND
USING
THE MODEL
BASIC
APPLICATION OF THE MODEL
The manager’s learning of the ADJ model is facilitated by
the use of the checklist of questions.
As experience is gained, the checklist may be modified to suit an
individual’s personal concerns or institutional circumstances.
Generally within an organisation, there will be a series of
matters that always impinge on decisions.
The experienced manager will be an expert on these.
When beginning to use the model, managers have found it
helpful to record their thoughts systematically on a check sheet as shown at
the end of your booklet.
Comparisons of these check sheets (between individuals
considering the same decision and between decisions taken by the same
individual) have been found to be revealing of personality, breadth and depth
of thought and competence in decision-making.
FURTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL
When the model
is applied to particular decisions it is found that the contentious issues
usually reduce to 1 or 2 components. The ability of an official to address
matters within Components may be developed but not without considerable effort.
A person's ability to appreciate RULES may be developed through the study of
administrative law; appreciation of MORALITY by the study of ethics; the logic
of RULES is addressed in courses on logic. It is at these points that a
manager's wider education becomes important in the quality of decisions.
Once the
Components of ADJ are mastered and habitually used, it is possible to use the
model more creatively to review decisions (Principles of Criticism) or to
examine the basis of a number of similar decisions (Consistent Administration).
CONSISTENT
ADMINISTRATION
Consider the following matrix that relates a number of
similar decision points to Components:
Component 1 2 3 4 5
___________________________________________________________
CONDITIONS
____________________________________________________________
FACTS
___________________________________________________________
RULES
____________________________________________________________
MORALITY
____________________________________________________________
OPTIONS
____________________________________________________________
RISKS
____________________________________________________________
If the salient points for 5 similar decision points are
recorded by Component in a matrix, it becomes possible to examine (on the basis
of actual cases) the way that Components affect decisions.
For example, it may be revealed that limitations of finance
are consistently overriding all other matters or that there are certain
principles of morality that the official or the organisation regard as being of
prime importance.
These financial concerns or moral principles could be built
into the organisation's version of the model and specifically taught to
officials. In this way we may
systematically work towards uniformity of administration between separate
organs of the one organisation.
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM
The Principles of criticism is an approach to reviewing
tentative decisions before final commitment.
In essence, the Principles ask that, for each Component,
from the various perspectives we might adopt, we ask the question: what minimal changes in the Components
would lead to a change in the decision?
For example, with FACTS: what facts would have to be
different for there to be a different decision outcome? It is this short list of essential facts
that should be the subject of our intensive investigation when we review the
robustness of decisions.
It is sensible (but not essential) to have an officer who
was not involved in the decision to undertake the review.
Over reliance on legal specifics may well produce inadequate
decisions. The law provides one component of decision-making, but only one. The
limitations of the law as a base for decision-making may be seen in the advice
given to students in Dowell and Webb’s text: (1) know the problem (2) identify
the legal issues (3) identify and apply the law (4) argue (5) conclude. In
their section on “argue” they state “If you are arguing on less legalistic
grounds, it is also important to give reasons. These may be arguments based on
principle, policy, justice, morality and the like”. The model of
decision-making (ADJ) is a framework that may be used to manage such a process
of argument.
___________________________________________________________
DECISION
JUSTIFICATION :
____________________________________________________________
COMPONENT CRITICAL
POINTS BACKING
____________________________________________________________
FACTS
RULES
MORALITY
__________________________________________________________________________
DECISION ANALYSIS WORKSHEET |
CASE:
DECISION POINT NUMBER:
|
CONDITIONS |
FACTS |
RULES |
OPTIONS |
MORALITY
|
RISKS
|