Decision making

Decision-Making: Article Review
Student’s Name:
Institution:
Abstract
The topic of decision-making in companies is a crucial one. With the ever-changing business environment, organizations have been forced to analyze every move they make in a bid to come up with decisions that serve the interest of their organizations. In this sense, the process of decision making has become one of the most important aspects of the companies’ operations because it is through the decisions that their success is determined. Further, CEOs and managers in these organizations need not only the knowledge acquired in the academic institutions but also the skills acquired by the experiences they face in their daily interaction with other business members. In this regard, this paper critically analyzes two articles, Rosenzweig (2013) and You can’t be a wimp (2013). In the analysis, the paper summarizes the arguments made in each article, compares and contrasts the similarities and differences in the arguments, and connects the arguments with the theme- decision making.
Keywords: Decision Making, Organizations, External Environment
Introduction
The contemporary business environment has been a constant change in the last decades. From the technological advancements to the ever-changing customer demands, it has become extremely challenging for the company executives to make decisions that will ensure the objectives of their organizations are achieved. In most cases, decisions are made by organizations with their relevance and perpetuity in mind.

Focusing on the decision making processes in organizations and their effects, this paper focuses on two articles which analyze the decision making processes. The first article by Rosenzweig (2013) focuses on the strategic decision-making process. In the article, the author tries to argue that the decision-making process relies on a number of factors- before any organization makes any decisions regarding their operations, they must recognize these different factors and the fact that different decisions require different strategies. On the other hand, the second article, You can’t be a Wimp (2013), is an interview of Ram Charan, one of the world’s most preeminent advisers to CEOs and Boards. In the interview, the main focus is on what is required to come up with the most effective and efficient decisions for companies. Charan outlines the challenges faced during this process, and what differentiates the best CEOs from the rest. The two articles are important for this analysis because of the way they provide an in-depth discussion of the main theme of this analysis, decision making- what is required in the decision-making process, the challenges faced during the process and what is needed to make the best decisions in organizations.
In light of the assertions made in the articles, this paper critically analyzes the arguments in both articles by summarizing the arguments made by the authors, comparing and contrasting the similarities and difference between the articles and weighing on how both articles support, provide differing perspectives and contradict the other.
Article Analysis
The first article, Rosenzweig (2013), focuses on strategic decision-making in organizations. According to the author, decisions differ based on the circumstances a company finds itself. Particularly, they contrast in two elements. The first element is control which considers how executives in an organization can influence the stipulations of the decision together with the outcome. The second element addresses the way success is measured. Based on the author’s assertions, executives often face an array of decisions. Before making these decisions, the essential thing is to recognize the specific field the decision is based. For instance, when making routine choices and judgments, where people cannot impact outcomes and need not put into consideration the competition, past lessons and experiences about avoiding general biases make sense- for another process, a special set of skills is needed. A good example is Buzz Bissinger’s assertions in his report on St. Louis Cardinals’ general manager called Tony La Russa. He stated that administrators need “a combination of skills essential to the trade: part tactician, part psychologist, part riverboat gambler” (Rosenzweig, 2013, par.13) In essence, these are common skills that every manager must acquire to make good decisions.
On the other hand, the second article, You can’t be a wimp (2013), is an interview that focuses on the challenges that have emerged in the contemporary business environment and how different executives deal with the challenges to ensure they make good decisions for their companies. While narrating his experiences when interacting with CEOs around the world, Charan argues that most of the decisions in the current market are influenced by the rapid technological advances, the changing customer demands and the managers’ ability to apprehend the future- he calls it perpetual acuity. In essence, decisions must be in line with the customers’ demands, the preferences of the investors, technological sustainability and the possibility of relevance in the future market. For instance, he gives an example of Ted Turner who apprehended the future by creating a 24-hour Cable News Network (CNN) before anyone else did. The decision was influenced by the customers’ demands, the increasing technological changes, and perpetual acuity. Therefore, based on Charan’s arguments, the best CEOs are recognized by their ability to recognize the identify of each of the named factors when making their decisions.
Article Comparison
An examination of the two articles highlights the importance of decision-making process in any organization. Ideally, every organization is faced with different challenges when making decisions fits for their operations. Most critics have found these challenges to revolve around technological advances, customer demands, and most importantly, competition from other companies. It is important to note that most organizations have failed or gone under because of ignoring these aspects of the market which makes it vital to observe them carefully- the two articles try to analyze these factors but differently.
Similarities
Both articles agree on the challenges that face the decision-making process in organizations. For instance, they both argue that external environment plays a big part in influencing the kind of decisions made by executives in a company. These external factors include technological advancements, the customer demands, the opinion of the investors, and organization’s resources. Also, both agree that good decisions must follow a process which must include the relevant stakeholders for a smooth implementation process. In as much as they tackle the process of making good decisions different, their main argument is driven towards understanding the relevant factors that must be taken into consideration before making any decision and making sure they are put into consideration. Rosenzweig (2013) discusses the external factors in the form of four fields of decisions which he argues that highly influence the process of strategic decision making. Similarly, Charan, in the other article, explains the external factors as technology, customers, investors, and perpetual acuity which are more or less the same thing. Indeed, when one looks at the current environment, firms are competing on all fronts. The executives must be focused on ensuring their organizations compete favorably by making decisions that will ensure their objectives are achieved. However, implementation sometimes becomes a problem. In most cases, it is important to involve every stakeholder, including the employees, in the decision-making process to enable a smooth implementation process.
Differences
Despite the similarities in the ideas raised in the two articles, there is a difference in their approach. For Rosenzweig (2013), the major focus is on the different fields of decisions namely making routine choices, influencing outcomes, and placing competitive bets. According to the author, previous decisions play an important role in making current decisions because they are used to avoid biases. On the contrary, Charan makes clear the major hurdles faced in the decision-making process. Based on his argument, decision-making is a process that is mainly influenced by external environment. Significantly, the ability to apprehend the future becomes an added advantage in these managerial positions. This is where the contradiction between the two articles comes – Rosenzweig (2013) argues that managers who have the ability to use past experiences to avoid the major biases and their effects make the best decision-makers while Charan believes that managers with perpetual acuity make the best decision-makers. However, past events have proven that apprehending the future might sometimes become difficult. For instance, no CEO foresaw the effects of the financial crisis in 2008, and this affected nearly all the organizations. Therefore, contrary to what the two articles say about decision-making, the unexpected events and occurrences still prove to be a serious challenge for companies.
Conclusion
The two articles have effectively tackled the theme of decision-making by highlighting the important factors to consider when making decisions in a company. However, not all these ideas work for all companies. Every company must consider their circumstances before any decision is made. For instance, the financial capabilities of a company play an important role. Like was suggested by Charan, Ted Turner had a brilliant idea when he created a 24-hour news network which was not there before. Nevertheless, what other managers must consider when replicating the same idea is whether they have the financial backing to employ the required manpower and facilities to create such a news network. Therefore, it is important to note that every decision made by the organization is influenced not only by external environment but also the internal environment.
References
Rosenzweig, P. (2013). What makes strategic decisions different. Harvard business review, 91(11), 88-93.
You can’t be a wimp. (2013). Harvard Business Review, 91(11), 72-78.