Assignment 2-KHA 79280 (2)

Table of Contents

Answer to question 1: 2

Answer to question 2: 3

Answer to question 3: 3

Answer to question 4: 4

References: 5



Answer to question 1:

Decision 1:

a)      Decision maker: Sony president and co- founder, Masura Ibuka and Akio Morita

Implementer: Kozo Ohsone, division head and Nobutoshi Kihara, the audio division engineer

Stakeholders: Junior executives who worked managed the promotional campaigns

External forces: McCann-Erickson, the international advertising agency (Nagasawa 2014)

b)      Perspective of both Co-founders and President: to create a personalized and portable music system so that people can enjoy music anytime and anywhere.

Perspective of Implementers: to create a new and innovative product

Stakeholders and external forces: to increase the sales of the company thereby improving profits.

Decision 2:

a)      Decision maker and implementer: Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet leader and  Fidel Castro and  President Kennedy

Stakeholders and external forces: United States government

b)      Perspective of Decision maker and implementer: to deter the harassment of Cuba by  putting a blockade  around Cuba so as to prevent Soviet Union from bringing in more military supplies (Polletta 2015).

Decision 3:

a)      Decision maker and implementer: Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke which was implemented by United States government and the law was signed by US President George W. Bush

External Forces: Senate and Congressional Leaders (Baird 2014)

b)      Perspective of the decision maker and implementer: to address the problem of subprime mortgage crisis and restore the confidence of people in the financial systems

Answer to question 2:

a) The decision addressed the problem of increasing the customer satisfaction by improving the customer care service provided by a telecom company. The decision was taken by the manager of the customer relationship management team and the members of the team who discussed how to maintain cordial relation and effectively solve the problems faced by the customers.

b)  The decision was taken in a participative style where all the views of the team members as well as manager was were considered and consensus was reached upon to find out the best possible solution to reach a positive consequence. Since there was a consensus, the support was tremendous.

c)  Since the staff was highly trained and decision was taken in a participative manner, there was a considerable amount of smoothness in transition from decision making phase to implementing phase. All the members completely understood their share of work and took full responsibility of their actions in effectively implementing the decision. There was no resistance since views of all the members were thoroughly analyzed and considered before reaching the final decision. At the end, the desired results were achieved.

Answer to question 3:

a)  The major player’s of the decisions social space was two members of the same team in the administration department of an IT company.

b) The first member believed that every employee should stick around the workplace even after he completes his daily target and the second member’s perspective was that at the end of day, what really matters is the quality of the work done and achievement of daily targets and it should not be connected with strict office hours.

c)  There was no overlap in the perspective of both the members; in fact it was conflicting with each other. Both had a viewpoint which lied at two ends of a continuum.

d)  The player’s different perspective were not exactly reconciled but the conflict was resolved when the manager of the team made his team understand with the help of training that to improve productivity, it was necessary to provide some kind of flexibility in the work hours and giving autonomy to each employee to leave the workplace after completing his daily targets and doing quality work is permissible. Quality results are what matters the most to the organization.

e) Yes at the end, the clear winner was the second member of the team since his perspective was accepted by his manager and the organization as well.

Answer to question 4:

a) Framing decisions is a kind of cognitive bias which describes how people react while making choices on the basis of how the situation is presented to them (Beach 2014). When they are presented with a positive frame they tend to reduce the risk and when they are faced with a negative frame, they prefer to take a risky decision or choice. Therefore when collective bodies make decisions the theory of Framing Decisions is applied.

b)  The Framing Decisions should not be applicable in case of United States Supreme Court judicial because they are appointed to help the public to seek justice and they also pledge to resolve legal issues on the basis of their merit and not on personal biases.

c) This argument is based on the assertion that when dealing with fairly trivial decisions made by individuals, the rationality of a decision process and its outcome is fairly easy to determine because the consequences are simple and easily manipulated and can be controlled with the help of various variables(Levin et al 2014). So it can be agreed upon.

d)  This argument is based on the assertion that framing decisions biases cannot be applied when dealing with decisions of consequence that have objectively verifiable correct answers, and we can determine whether the decision process and its outcome are rational because the biases will then be easily identifiable.


Baird, J., Plummer, R., Haug, C., & Huitema, D. (2014). Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change27, 51-63.

Beach, L. R. (Ed.). (2014). Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective. Psychology Press.

Levin, I. P., McElroy, T., Gaeth, G. J., Hedgcock, W., & Denburg, N. L. (2014). Behavioral and neuroscience methods for studying neuroeconomic processes: What we can learn from framing effects.

Nagasawa, S. (2014). Design Management Seen at SONY-Having Managers and Designers Meet Halfway.

Polletta, F. (2015). Talk at the Brink: Deliberation and Decision during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews44(2), 202-204.