Decision Analysis for Consensus between Holders of Stakes and Stocks (Part 2)
Decision Analysis for Consensus between Holders of Stakes and Stocks (Part 1)
This kind of subjectivity applies to stating objectives as well, especially the optional ones. Safety of capital and legal compliance are obvious ‘musts’ when it comes to writing out objectives, but should profit have precedence over appreciation, or the other way around? Are we in stocks for the short-term, and what does the latter mean anyway? Should cash chase blue-chips or should investors look for hidden potentials?
Not everyone may agree with alternatives that are generated after objectives have been stated. This is why Decision Analysis can be iterative, as groups may modify their original decision statements because they find that the recommendations they want to promote do not fit too well! Obviously, nanotechnology and genetics will find places amongst the alternatives, but deep sea mining is the kind of blue-sky area on which all members may not be agreed.
The Business Process Transparency Route to Buttress Values of Stocks
No one should be put off by the endless confrontation that decision-making seems to imply. A company that is able to bring various view-points to the surface will perform better and more consistently than one in which executives are solely concerned with decorum and protocol.
It is best to use professional trainers to introduce organizations to formal methods of decision making. This dissolves barriers to effective communication that an entrenched bureaucracy represents, and helps organizations discover their dynamic spirits afresh. It is also relevant to underscore the stability benefits of transparent organizations in which all executives have to justify, even ‘sell’ their ideas.
Due process with respect to decision-making can become one of the most valuable weapons of competitive advantage. It promotes the entrepreneurial spirit in large corporations, and can be a source of renewed enthusiasm for executives in mature segments. It reduces dependence on selected individuals and protects organization from the effects of key separations. Highly subjective decision-making may be the undoing of the most successful corporations. Structured conclusions with group consensus on trade-offs and alternatives on the other hand, tend to lift even mediocre companies to higher planes of performance. All decision makers need feedback and inputs on their thinking, and should have aids to modify their views and preferences. That is why formal decision-making is not just for companies which work for profits, but for organizations of all genres.