Problem Identification & Decision Framing
By: Athena Roberts
21 May 2001
MGT 350
Instructor: Martin McAuliffe
University of Phoenix
**********************************************
Abstract
In this assignment I discuss the various forms of thinking and forces of influence affecting problem recognition/identification and decision framing, especially as they pertain to managerial responsibilities. I will also discuss the following assertion in the assignment’s description: “So, perception is NOT reality; or, at best, only the perceiver’s reality.”
******************************************
.In the assignment description for “Problem Identification and Decision Framing” you made the assertion that “perception is not reality; or, at best, only the perceiver’s reality.” As part of my assignment, I will address that statement. My reason for doing that is that the idea “perception is not reality” is much more fundamental to man’s epistemology than problem identification or decision framing. Whether or not a person accepts the idea of being unable to perceive reality will dramatically affect his ability and confidence in identifying problems or doing anything else for that matter.
I do not agree with the idea that perception is not reality or only the perceiver’s reality. If one accepts that idea, then he would be unable to identify any problem, much less frame a decision, for how would he know there is a problem? How could he be certain he perceived anything real if perception is not reality? He couldn’t. Furthermore, if perception is only the perceiver’s reality, then any problem he “perceived” would not apply to anything else including the company he works for because it only exists in his “reality.” Would any manager seriously consider going before his superiors to discuss solving a problem that only he could perceive? If he did, how would he be able to prove the problem exists? Would he even have the confidence to apply for a job in management, or any job, if he believed everything he perceived was not reality? If there is anyone for whom that statement is true, it could only be people on hallucinogenic drugs or the mentally ill. Those are the sort of people who perceive things that don’t exist. Accepting the idea of being unable to perceive an objective reality puts man in a constant state of uncertainty and undermines his confidence in dealing with the world. Neither of those characteristics are desirable in a manager.
It is true that there are forces that can influence a person’s thinking. Some of those are good (meaning influencing a person toward looking at the world objectively) and others are bad (meaning causing a person to ignore reality or distort it in his mind). Some forces of influence are how a person answers the following questions: “Is reality knowable?” “Are the things I perceive independent of my observation or a consequence of it?” “Can I acquire knowledge through a process of rational thought, or only through revelation?” Other things that might affect how a manager would see a problem are his position in the company, how much sleep he’s had and the values he’s chosen to accept. You also suggested other forces of influence including gender, culture, ethnicity, birth order, religion, race, economic status and ethics. To the degree that a manager accepts or rejects those influences and those influences helpfulness toward accurate problem identification and decision framing will determine her level of success.
Rational minds can differ on the nature of a problem and on its proper solution. There are an uncountable number of reasons why people have different opinions. Some of those reasons are honest and others are not. It’s also possible for a person to not even be consciously aware of why he accepts the ideas he does. All that stems from the fact that people have volitional consciousness. That means that they can choose to think or not at any moment in their lives and in any area. The world is full of both men and women are rational in some areas of their life but completely irrational in others. It is also true that there are some things that people won’t ever agree upon. The fact that people disagree does not say anything about reality or the state of mind of the people involved. It does not even prove that no one can know reality. That people disagree only proves that people disagree.
Making the reasoning process more difficult are two more facts. Humankind is not omniscient or infallible. A person can be completely honest in how he supports his opinions but still make a mistake in logic or be unaware of some crucial fact. All of that has lead many of our history’s philosophers to preach the idea that humans incapable to knowing reality. That conclusion is incorrect. The most obvious evidence against it is that mankind has been around for quite some time. If his mind were impotent, he would not have survived his first year on earth. He would not have learned to hunt, to farm, or to land on the Moon. Nor would he even have been able to come up with the idea that he can’t grasp reality because he would have no means of proving to himself (or others) he can’t since all things would be subjective. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t made serious mistakes and made them frequently. But, by applying reason to the problems he faces, he has been able to rise from a creature barely able to survive against nature and wild animals to the dominate species of this world. No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking (a philosopher’s name I don’t remember). If there is any thing to learn from humankind’s fallibility and limited knowledge, it is that all people must have freedom to draw their own conclusions, act accordingly and reap their own reward or loss. For that to happen, they must be free from compulsion from others.
Now that we know all that, how do we accept each other’s differences and still get anything done? The first question to ask to solve that problem is “Are our differences really relevant to the problem?” Three people might be discussing how to increase sales. One is a Christian, one is a Moslem, and the other is an atheist. Are any of those views actually going have an effect on how to solve the problem? It is possible that they might. The two religious people could assert that the way to solve the problem is to start praying for more sales. The atheist, if by rejecting the idea of God, he also erroneously rejected the idea of right and wrong, could suggest lying about their product’s capabilities. The atheist’s suggestion would likely appall the two religionists and their recommendation would probably cause the atheist have a fit of laughter. If the group stayed at that level of discussion, they would never come to any agreement. The way out of their problem and for any group with differing views is individual commitment to the facts of reality. Each person must be willing to look at the facts without regard to his hopes, wishes and fears. That does not mean that it will be easy or that each member of the group will be objective all the time. However, their chances of solving their problems and making the company succeed are directly related how consistently each member strives toward that ideal. Upper management can have great degree of influence in fostering that climate.
**********************************************
References:
Browne, M. Neil, and Stuart M. Keeley. Critical Thinking: Asking the Right Questions. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000.
McCall, Morgan W. Jr., and Robert E. Kaplan. Whatever It Takes: The Realities of Managerial Decision Making. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.