Business Decision-Making: The Heuristic Approach

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Heuristic Approach
Legal and Ethical Implications
Persuasion
Conclusion
References

Abstract

The heuristic approach in business decision-making generally defines the allover image of business performance. Consequently, there is a strong necessity to analyze and research the decision-making process within a company on the example of an interview with an applicant.

Introduction

First, it is necessary to emphasize that the types of heuristics, which are generally used in the decision-making process depend on the previous experience of the person, who makes a decision. As for the issues of accepting or declining the candidate for the job, it should be stated that the reasons could be numerous, ranging from the perfumes to the race of the candidate.

Heuristic Approach

The heuristics, which are used by the co-worker are, evidently, the following: reasoning by analogy and “Seeking means rather than ends”. Originally, these are the most widely used approaches in business decision-making, especially, touching upon the issues of interviewing.

The fact is that the heuristic approach of the co-worker is hard to define, as his reply was rather short and without any visible logic for a clear definition of the approach. As Herbert Simon stated in his research (in Slade, 2001, p. 564): “complexity, limited time, and inadequate mental computational power reduce decision makers to a state of “bounded rationality.” Decision-making shortcuts can save time and ease the psychological burden of decision-making. However, like other judgmental biases, there are circumstances where the use of such heuristics may result in bad choices.” One of the most evident approaches was the reasoning by analogy. Originally, it is the most illogical method, consequently, it could be used by the co-worker for the decision-making process. Reasoning by analogy means that he could have already dealt with Hispanic candidates of a similar qualification level, and decided that Hispanic marketing manager can not be regarded as a suitable variant for the company, consequently, the candidate should be refused in this position.

Another approach that could have been used is called “Seeking means rather than ends”. Originally, it is also regarded as consequentialism. Jeremy Bentam explained this approach with the issues of ethical egoism and altruism: “can be explained as a consequentialist theory in accordance with which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. Thus, egoism may license actions which are good for the agent, but it is generally seen as detrimental to the general welfare.”(in Hastie, 2001, p. 432). The co-worker has previously heard that most Hispanics are not aware of the US particularities of marketing, and, even even though the candidate has Masters’s Degree in Marketing, it does not mean that she would be able to adapt quickly to the real marketing situation in this particular business sphere. In the light of this fact, there is a strong necessity to mention that the candidate just appeared to be the victim of nationalistic prejudice or negative experience of co-worker’s communication with Hispanic bracketologists. (Beach, 2004)

Legal and Ethical Implications

As for the matters of legal and ethical implications, it should be stated that everything depends on the real considerations and motives of the co-worker to refuse this candidate. Originally, there are some legal implications, which incorporate the personal attitude of co-workers towards the respondent. Basing on the notion that a co-worker refused the candidate based on her race, it should be stated that this decision can not be regarded as legally and ethically correct. Both angles of this decision are negative. Nevertheless, if this decision was based on the results of the interview, there is no legal or ethical responsibility nay be applied, nevertheless, it would be better if the co-worker clearly explained his decision. From this point of view, it should be stated that the most evident reason is the personal attitude towards this person, but not her professional value for the company and business in general. (Hastie, 2001)

As for the matters of ethical implications, there is a strong necessity to mention that this angle of decision-making is not originally represented in interviewing.

The hiring decision, which was made by the co-worker is difficult to explain from the point of view of legal or ethical implications, nevertheless, depending on the heuristic approach, which was used for the decision-making, it should be stated that the suitability of the candidate was not defined by her professional or personal characters only. (Walsh and Osipow, 2005)

Persuasion

Taking into consideration that the co-worker did not give any clear explanation of his decision, and the details of the interview are unknown, it should be stated that persuasion is not restricted by any factors. The main argument for persuasion will be the fact that the respondent has revealed herself as the highly estimated and experienced specialist in the sphere of marketing. Surely, it would be more preferable if she had a Ph.D. level, however, the fact that she has twenty years of experience in the sphere of marketing positions her like a valuable and reliable specialist, who can adapt to the quickly changing marketing conditions, study quickly and, evidently, forecast the marketing situation in the future. Otherwise, she would not stay in this sphere for such a long time. Even if her abilities appear to be useless for the company, her experience would be rather helpful for the improvement of business performance, and she could share her experience in the sphere of market research and forecasts, thus, refusing her in this position was at least unreasonable. In the light of this fact, it should be stated that the required qualification level is a very subjective factor here, as real experience can not be defined by the only interview. Moreover, business does not bear racial or nationalistic prejudices, as Hispanics are rather talented at studying something new. Consequently, the decision was not based on some reasonable conclusions, and the co-worker did not think of the possible benefits of hiring this employee.

Consequently, basing on these notions, the co-worker should put away any racial prejudices and take into consideration the professional and personal values of the worker.

Conclusion

Finally, there is a strong necessity to mention that the heuristic approach, which is used by the co-worker can not be regarded as the approach for making an objective decision. Originally, he should refuse such approaches for making adequate responses in the business sphere.

References

Beach, L. R. (Ed.). (2004). Decision Making in the Workplace: A Unified Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for Judgment and Decision Making. 653.

Slade, S. (2001). Goal-Based Decision Making: An Interpersonal Model. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Walsh, W. B. & Osipow, S. H. (Eds.). (2005). Career Decision Making. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Click Here To Order Now!