Problem Solving and Decision Making Skills Essay

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.

“Decision-making is usually defined as a process of identifying the problems and the possibilities for their solution which includes the efforts before and after the decision is made”. Of poor quality of decision-making, every particular feature of the institution may be affected (Muhammad, Isa, Othman, & Rahim, 2009).

Decision-making can be regarded as problem problem-solving process. It involves choosing between possible solutions to a problem. Whether on an institutional or personal level, the decisions need to be apt to be executed. The decisions could be made through either intuitive or reasoned processes or with a combination of the two. The intuitive process involves your ‘gut feeling’ about

Reviews of related research suggested that there are some steps for the decision-making process. By using this step-by-step approach, a person can make reflective and enlightened decisions that can have a great and constructive effect on the institution’s short and long-term objectives.

Identify the decision.
Gather information.
Identify alternatives.
Weigh the evidence.
Choose among alternatives.
Take action.
Review your decision (Craven, 1975).

To meet the divine educational needs and requirements of students, society, and scholarship within comparatively fixed resource limitations, the challenge faced by higher education is to perpetuate and sustain the quality of its programs and faculty. Productive information decision systems are increasingly of great importance in allowing higher educational institutions to meet this challenge successfully. The purpose of this paper was to provide a theoretical basis for understanding and describing the nature and role of information systems in higher educational decision-making (Craven, 1975).

The representation of right-giving theory and administration theory has been found in current years, concerning the importance of participation in deliberated decision-making. In both the public and private sectors, the aim of increasing participation has been an attempt to find a means to (1) ‘give greater value to the wise thoughts and good effects of decision-makers in working out expertly agreement’, and (2) ‘secure the support of executives in an institutions environment’. Changing the structure of the institution, and rectifying attempts, often have the aim of increasing participation. Studies of the deliberated decision-making process recommended that structural alterations were not a specifically effective way to increase participation (Kingsley, 1997).

Decision makers in public and private sectors as their support needs differ, worked for discrete decision-making factors and also employed discrete decision actions. Within the public and private sectors in New Zealand, this mixed-methodology experiential study seemed to segregate perspectives as well as key decision processes regarding the information quality of senior administrators. In these sectors, the results indicate differences; specifically in terms of how decisions were constructed and how decision-makers viewed the readiness and aptness of the information they received. In these two sectors, this had implications for the provision of assistance for decision-makers (Dillon, Buchanan & Corner, 2010).

According to a study proposed by Armstrong (2004), in contrast, public sector administration had refrained from much of the disputations while flourishing along side by side, if divergent ways of heightened recognition of the need for administration levels in the public sector. Examples of likeness that were distinctly divergent in factors were the role of representatives, public sector administrators managed to subsidize in the name of the public versus the role played by administrators in institutions, and the participation (or expected participation) of divergent contributors in both the public and the private sectors.

In general collaborative administration was concorded with the structures and procedures for decision-making, liability, authority, and performance at the top of institutions (Spiller, 2004). The issues were inscribed which were emerging from the association between boards of directors, such as contact with senior administration and association with the keepers and others focused on the matters of the institution, including regulators, auditors, creditors, debt financiers, and analysts (Standards Australia, 2003). The purpose of good administration was to upgrade the institution, minimize investment, business, and functional threats, enhance the owner’s confidence in the institution, and help the hindrance of forged, deceptive, and crooked behavior.

Public and private sector decision-making was studied with an experiment. The study compared decision-making in governmental agencies that were tax-supported with that of business organizations selling to a market, using a counterfeit to abduct divergent in the choices and processes of mid-level administrators working in the two sectors. The counterfeit calls for engaging administrators to determine the threat and forecast to approve finances made to measure each sector. An intellectual idea that emphasized evaluation, deliberation, negotiating, or communication was applied to fashion finances suitable for a public and a private sector institution, each with a contentious and apparent financial proportion. The study found that private sector administrators were more inclined to reinforce the finance decisions made with evaluation and less likely to assist them when negotiation was applicable. Public sector administrators were less likely to assist finance decisions backed by evaluation and more likely to assist those that were obtained from negotiation with organization persons (Nutt, 2005).

In the private sector, the planned actions and ideas were first developed, so they induced much dissension when they drifted to the public sector in the late 1970s onwards. This was partially their aptness to the distinguish factors of government institutions, their center was basically on private and public value, their situation in administration rather than a business environment, they aim to attain legal authority, and the limit to which they often need to share force over organizations and assets with other public sector.

In the public sector, much of the research plans are based on the process roles. A lesser ratio gave heed to the subject matter (e.g., (Vining 2016)), but was prone to structure it in economic rather than wider terms. With the emergence of public management interest in democratic consideration, public involvement, discussion, data-sharing, and identical works of art of democratic policies, over the recent decades, the content role has become more important. Increasingly, public administrators found themselves as originators or solicitees, coordinators, founders, data suppliers, supporters, or devil’s supporters in public consideration procedures. This raised standardized questions as to the roles of public administrators in right-giving decision-making (Alford et al. 2016), but more important for our objectives were its consequences for policy and policy-making.

The potency of the association between Public and Private Sector had increased. Its nature had also become more intense and complex rather than linear relations, but also more renewable form, where Private Sector assistance became an amalgamated element of research policy decision-making. This was favorable for both sides: The Private Sector’s insight and apprehension, its expressed needs, and suggestions added to the integrity and the eminent prosecution of research strategies. However, advanced association in research strategy issues helped to increase acknowledgment of Private Sector ventures and to encourage their R&D expenditure, thus creating influence for the attainment of the Lisbon and Barcelona goals.

The systematic and productive association did not ‘happen naturally’. It must be encouraged, streamlined, and sustained in an apprehensive effort on both sides. Private Sector actors must be conscious of the advantages of being involved in research and research policy and undertake devoted efforts to prompt their notions, needs, and suggestions in research policy decision procedures. Public Sector policymakers must understand the Private Sector’s notions and needs amalgamate its beliefs and suggestions and must be open to criticism. (Braun, Filiatreau, Inzelt, Kunova, Cadiou, Csonka, Meisner, & Siman, 2006).

Decision-making used to be the most common type of problem-solving. It can also be an integral element of potency in another more ill-formed and complicated type of problem-solving, involving strategy issues and design issues. The different kinds of decisions, included varieties, approvals, assessments, and structures. After specification of the supremacy and significance of decision-making to problem-solving and everyday acknowledgment, this study found the contrast between conventional and realistic approaches to decision-making. Conventional approaches, such as decision formats, SWOT, and force field analyses, scaffold rational decision-making approaches. Realistic approaches such as establishing narratives, mental simulations, scripts, and disagreements, stress decision preferences and the role of unconscious feelings in decision-making (Jonassen, 2012).

According to a study proposed by Koch (2005), the contrast between the public and private sectors was that the public sector was not interest-oriented in the business term. However, the determination for creativity and advancement found in the public sector was likely also found in the private sector, and certainly in third-sector institutions. The fact that public institutions were not interest-oriented, had not given us a thought that the public sector employees were not bothered about the financial matters. As was the case within private institutions, public sector institutions fight for capital and authority.

The public administration hypothesis usually supposed that public and private institutions’ decisions and decision procedures vary. However, unexpectedly little investigation has determined certain, observed differences and similarities. Between research and theory this gap seemed to be filled, this study analyzed the impact of the state of being public on the types of planned decisions identified by managers. Two different notions of the state of being public were analyzed, one based on an institution’s legal authority or possession, the other a structural concept by which depending on the degree of external political control of their assets and actions, institutions can be more or less public. (Coursey, & Bozeman, 1990).

Private administration was different from public administration as it had been a primary consideration of public management since it was founded. (Rainey 2009; Rainey and Bozeman 2000). The hypothetical evaluation of how the effect of administration contrasts in private versus public institutions (Meier & O’Toole Jr, 2011).

Decision-making can be remarked as an outcome of intellectual procedures (cognitive process) that led to the option of a method among many substitutes. Every decision-making procedure produced an absolute option. The result can be an action or a belief. This descriptive study was proposed to identify the Decision-making practices in managerial and educational concerns in the universities of Pakistan. The study outcomes investigate that whole decision-making practices in the universities were found insufficient and displeasing and, most of the judgments were made without implementation of administrative decision-making approaches (Nadeem, Imran, & Sarwar, 2008).

The assimilation of industry and education led to the decline of the private sector with the least expenditure in this discipline in the early 1970s. This extended into the late 90s with Pakistan recorded relatively low civil expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP. Thus the government of Pakistan founded the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in an attempt to improve cognitive assets and registrations, delegated to analyze, enhance and upgrade the higher education and research norms in both private and public sectors in Pakistan. Since its foundation in 2002, the HEC has “undertaken a systematic process of operationalization of the five-year agenda for reform outlined in the HEC Medium Term Development Framework (MTDF)”. (Qazi, Simon, Rawat, & Hamid, 2010)

The decision-making process is used to be the everyday managerial operation that occurs at all levels in organizations. Decisions have to be customized to attain objectives and execute activities. Decision-making procedures are considered to be the most cognitive process, as different elements are included in it. Orasanu and Connolly (1993) termed it as a course of intellectual activities performed fully, Narayan and Corcoran-Perry (1997) considered decision-making as the association between a problem that needs to be sorted and a person who desires to sort it out within a certain situation.

In a study proposed by Naz, Zaman, Ghaffar, Ameen, Ali & Iqbal (2013), the main objective of this study was to contrast the persuaded decision-making applications in the universities of Pakistan. The decision-making applications were contrasted on the following perspectives: a. Decision determined by the chair, b. Decisions made by a majority of votes c. Decisions taken on administrative accounts in private and public sector universities. Both public and private sectors were founded to have the same processes of decision-making and were assembled by a majority of votes. There were found differences between private and public sector universities in that decisions were determined by the chair and were taken in corresponding to inward and outward force. This thing was seen usually in public sector universities of Pakistan.

Relating to managerial strains in higher education, Akhtar and Kalsoom (2012) proposed a study that was primarily based on depicting the body of the colleges and their connections with different companions. This study was undertaken to contrast the administrative operations in private and public universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The contrast was grounded on the accessibility of written paperwork, division of work, accessibility of administrators, approach to officers, time allocation, assigned work and workload, employee elevation processes, and evaluation system. Adding to this, the contrast was also planted on clarity, administrative arbitrations, use of power, nepotism, and favoritism, human resource accessibility and operations, decisions related to education, the essence of distinctive decision-making bodies, committees, and their part in policy making and applications and administrative styles (Khan, Aijaz, & Ali, 2018).

Statement of the Problem

Decision-making is one of the most important strategies in both the public and private sectors of Higher Education. The different decision-making strategies are used in both the public and private sectors. The present study is planned to compare the decision-making strategies in the public and private sectors, to find out which sector holds more authority and which sector is free to make decisions on its own.

In this context, the statement of the problem is ‘The comparative study of public and private sectors decision making strategies at Higher Education in Lahore’.

Objectives of the Study

There are the following objectives of the study:

To identify decision-making strategies of public and private sector leaders at Higher Education.
To compare public and private sector decision-making strategies at Higher Education Institutes.

Research questions

What are the decision-making strategies of public and private sector leaders in Higher Education?
How public and private sector decision-making strategies are different in Higher Education?

Significance of the Study

The present study would have an important impact on the public and private sectors. The existing study will help find the authorities and their liberty to make decisions. The results of the findings are important for both the public and private sectors as well as for the persons who are operating these sectors.

Methodology

A quantitative research approach and a Causal-Comparative research design are used for this research. The data will be collected through questionnaires.

Population of the study

The population of the study consisted of the Heads of Departments (HODs) of Public and Private Universities in Lahore.

Sample of the study

A total of 100 male and female HODs from public and private universities will be selected conveniently. Approximately 50 HODs will be approached from public and 50 HODs from private universities.

Data Collection

The data is collected from the Head of Departments (HODs) of Public and Private Universities in Lahore.

Data Analysis

The data is analyzed, interpreted, and tabulated in the form of a table. It is analyzed with the help of the computer program SPSS (statistical package for social science). Data analysis is carried out by using causal-comparative statistics. Descriptive or inferential statistics is used for further analysis.

Click Here To Order Now!