ACADEMIA Letters

Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s

perspective
Nick Mapletoft, University Centre Quayside

“What is the secret of success? Right decisions. How do you make right de-
cisions? Experience. How do you gain experience? Wrong decisions.” A.P.J.
Abdul Kalam (former President of India)

Etymologically – incision means to cut in, whereas decision means to cut off (options).

Problem solving and decision making models

Simon (1959) proposes that all decisions involve three activities: intelligence; design; choice.
Robbins ([2005] cited in Boddy, 2016, p. 211) categorises organisational decisions into
programmed and non-programmed, where people at the lower levels typically address routine
problems by applying organisational procedures. For a manager operating at a lower level (or
otherwise in a routine situation), it may be beneficial to understand the rationale of having
formal policies and procedures for problem solving. For a manager operating more strategi-
cally, there may not be an accepted method to solve their problem and so they must consider
decision making models and assess their likely efficacy in the critical situation.
Investigation shows that there are multiple competing decision and problem solving mod-
els (e.g. Nicholas, 2017; Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2017) which are based either on the logical
(reasoning), biological (processes) or heuristical (strategies).
Capelo (& Dias, 2009) tell us that managers use the mental models they carry in their
brains to make decisions. Therefore, it can be argued that knowing more models, ones that
map to the problem and/or the organisational objective, provides better congruence between

Academia Letters, August 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Nick Mapletoft, nick.mapletoft@ucq.ac.uk

Citation: Mapletoft, N. (2021). Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s perspective. Academia
Letters, Article 3361. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3361.

1
the internal (the manager) and external (organisation). McFall (2015) argues that, despite the
multitude of available models, we only have one brain. Beauregard (& O’Leary, 2008) explain
that materialists believe only in the brain, whereas idealists believe in the separate mind.
Rational models all follow the same (Plan, Do, Check, Act) sequence: problem identifica-
tion followed by solution generation (alternatives), solution selection, solution implementation
and evaluation. Amongst the techniques that can be used to support rational modelling are
PEST, SWOT, MBO, PERT, Pareto analysis and decision trees.
True rationalists are less likely to consider the ethical aspects. Simon’s Normative Model
is based on the premise that decision making is not rational, that it is characterised by being
based on limited information, shortcuts and to be satisfying.
The manager may better make a ‘good’ decision if they combine models, taking account
of the rational and the normative.
Group Decision Making Models (such as Vroom and Yetton [1973] cited in Boddy, 2016,
p. 223) can facilitate the gathering of more facts from a wider perspective, resulting in more
alternative solutions, whilst also being more satisfying to participants, so they are more likely
to support the decision. Janis ([1972] cited in Boddy, 2016, p. 225) cautions us on Groupthink
which is where a cohesive group starts to make biased decisions.
Early work on problem solving through reflective thinking includes the seminal work of
Dewey (1933/ 2011), which discusses the difficulty in suspending assumption and acceptance
of established norms, to question or disregard assumptions and to suspend judgment during
inquiry.
Schön (1984) introduced the idea of single and double loop learning. He claimed to have
derived the notions of reflecting-on-action and reflection-in-action, from the works of Dewey
(1933/ 2011). He wrote about the reflective practitioner and puts forward his view or how pro-
fessionals really go about solving problems, by telling us how they think in action. Reflection-
in-action is about making sense of what is happening as it happens (Bolton, 2014).
Reflection in my profession is recognised as being of value, Brown (1995) proposes that
teachers reflecting on their work is teaching’s holy grail.

The need for integrity, fairness and consistency in managerial de-

cision making
Ethics is about how we deal with alternatives (Husted & Husted, 2008), the centrality placing
the decision maker between what is fair and integral ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and what is ‘beneficial’
or ‘harmful’; then doing so reliably (consistently).

Academia Letters, August 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Nick Mapletoft, nick.mapletoft@ucq.ac.uk

Citation: Mapletoft, N. (2021). Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s perspective. Academia
Letters, Article 3361. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3361.

2
 Bolton (2014, p.22) tells us that ethical values form the basis for what we believe and how
we act, and as such require no justification. Values we hold as individuals are ‘espoused’,
‘values-in-practice’ are those we live and work by. Sometimes these values are at variance,
which can be challenging for the individual, or be a cause of friction between colleagues.
Professional integrity is when the values-in-practice are close or the same to the espoused
values (Husted & Husted, 2008).
An examination of normative theories shows a distinction between deontological and tele-
ological perspectives. A manager who operates deontologically does so out of duty. Her de-
cisions are governed by moral rules, she has a sense of duty to always do the right thing even
if it ends in a bad result (for example she might refuse to tell a lie to a client, even if it means
losing the sale). Conversely, a utilitarian manager who operates teleologically, does so in the
belief that ‘the end justifies the means’. In his mind he may separate the action(s) he takes
from the end result he attains (using the above example, the manager may tell the client a lie,
believing that the end result of the client buying the product, is the right one).
In the Western world, we look to the ancient Greek philosophers for three ethical view-
points: The Socratic view (464-399 BC) meant the search for ‘the good life’; The Platonic
view (427-347 BC) looked at the ‘worth’ of the life, Plato’s belief was that we are born know-
ing (knowledge is a priori); The Aristotelian (483-322 BC) theory was based upon successful
living (i.e. human life), in the living world, Aristotle’s contention was that knowledge only
came from experience (a posteriori).
An example of Aristotle’s perspective is the “Golden Mean” (Husted & Husted, 2008,
p.xvi), finding a virtuous middle ground between two extreme vices. One attitude is deficient,
for example a manager who is indifferent and inattentive to her subordinates. A second is ex-
cessive, for example a manager who feels the need to control his situation and so is overbearing
and controlling of his subordinate. The virtuous manager would take the “Golden Mean” of
these vices, being attentive and nurturing, not indifferent and not domineering. Reaching an
ethical decision can be challenging as it requires overcoming obstacles (Werhane, 2014, pp.
115-123).
Being authentic relates to self-understanding (Gursansky, Quinn, and Le Seur, 2010).
Yaacoub (2016, p. 48) tell us that ‘Authentic leaders venture into an inward journey to digest
their experiences, learning from their ascriptive, biographical, and societal life challenges to
explore their values and beliefs’. Their values are formed through transformative life expe-
riences (ibid). In contrast, Helyer (2015) argues that learning is gradual and ongoing and as
such is often hard to trace back to where it came from.
It can be beneficial for staff to understand the rationale and justification so they know that
their manager has not acted or reacted without due consideration, and that they have done so

Academia Letters, August 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Nick Mapletoft, nick.mapletoft@ucq.ac.uk

Citation: Mapletoft, N. (2021). Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s perspective. Academia
Letters, Article 3361. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3361.

3
in the interest of progress against the corporate objectives.

Making difficult or unpopular decisions to support the organisa-

tion’s purpose, values or vision.
To me, difficult decisions are often the ones that cause conflict or dissonance between personal
and professional, and those that lack important bit hard to find information. I try to minimise
conflict from unpopular decisions by involving team members as much as possible. I have
found that it helps to have a clear vision and purpose and to have a set of established and
shared core values. When I need to make difficult or unpopular decisions, referring to our
purpose and vision helps others to understand that my decision is objective and in support of
the institution at all times.
Among the types of difficult and unpopular decisions are recruiting, promoting, firing,
restructuring, supporting failure, and where there is a lack of congruence in values that needs
addressing.
Being an employer means that I am often asked by friends, family and clients to create
an opening for themselves or someone close to them. This can be awkward (or worse) and it
is why I have set one of our values is that we will not give recruitment preference to family
(nepotism) or friends (favouritism). Choosing the right new staff member is difficult because
the wrong person can disrupt the existing team. I involve staff in the recruitment process and
use recruitment decision making models to help ensure that the recruitment is as transparent
and unbiased as possible. If we get it wrong, I am willing to admit it and make changes quickly.
Promotion may be both difficult and unpopular. It is hard to put right if it goes wrong,
meaning that a competent employee becomes incompetent in a new role, essentially leaving
two roles unfulfilled. Promotion decisions are often contentious and disruptive when other
team members are jealous. Clear rationale and empirical evidence from appraisal metrics
together with clear job specifications will help to show objectivity.
Releasing staff is one of the most difficult decisions as it has an impact on all staff, not just
those leaving. I have found that it is vital that a formal and objective process is followed, that
the severance is fair, that anyone leaving is thanked and acknowledged for all the good work
they have done (even if they have recently done something and that is not good).
Similarly, in restructuring the process must objectively relate to the institution’s purpose.
If the purpose changes and it is no longer appropriate for some staff to stay, it is important to
communicate this clearly, backed up with evidential information such as new job specifica-
tions, vision and purpose.

Academia Letters, August 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Nick Mapletoft, nick.mapletoft@ucq.ac.uk

Citation: Mapletoft, N. (2021). Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s perspective. Academia
Letters, Article 3361. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3361.

4
In summary
Difficult and unpopular decision are inevitable. The manager’s job when making them should
be fair and impartial, not ‘robotic’, arrogant or vindictive. Involving other staff when possible
helps in making many decisions. Being objective and having the evidence base is not about
making excuses for the decision, it is about demonstrating that the decision was fair and not
personal or subjective. Models and tools help in gathering important facts and can demonstrate
impartiality and rationale.

References
Ashford, M. (2000). Con tricks: The shadowy world of management consultancy and how to
make it work for you. New York, NY, United States: Simon & Schuster Ltd. (UK).

Beauregard, M., & O’Leary, D. (2008). The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the
Existence of the Soul (Reprint edition). New York: HarperOne.

Boddy, D. (2013). Management: An introduction (6th ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Pear-
son Education.

Bolton, G. E. J. (2014). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. London,

United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.

Brown, K. (1995). Teachers Reflecting on their Work: Teaching’s Holy Grail? Teaching and
Teachers’ Work, 3(1), 1–9.

Capelo, C., & Dias, J. F. (2009). A feedback learning and mental models perspective on
strategic decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5),
629–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9123-z

Cunningham, J. (2013, February 1). Ethical leadership in business. Retrieved from http://
www.infobarrel.com/Ethical_Leadership_in_Business

Dewey, J. (2011). How we think (1933). Martino Fine Books.

George, B. (2004). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., U.S.

Germain, D., & Reed, R. (2009). A book about innocent: Our story and some things we’ve
learned. London: Michael Joseph.

Academia Letters, August 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Nick Mapletoft, nick.mapletoft@ucq.ac.uk

Citation: Mapletoft, N. (2021). Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s perspective. Academia
Letters, Article 3361. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3361.

5
Gursansky, D., Quinn, D., & Le Sueur, E. (2010). Authenticity in reflection: Building re-
flective skills for social work. Social Work Education, 29(7), 778–791. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02615471003650062

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2014). Decisive: How to Make Better Decisions. Random House
Business.

Helyer, R. (2015). Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based
learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.
1108/jwam-10-2015-003

Husted, G., & Husted, J. (2008). Ethical Decision Making in Nursing and Healthcare: The
Symphonological Approach (4th Revised edition edition). New York: Springer Publishing
Co. Inc.

Krogerus, M., & Tschäppeler, R. (2017). The Decision Book: Fifty models for strategic
thinking (Main edition). Profile Books.

McFall, J. P. (2015). Directions toward a meta-process model of decision making: Cognitive

and behavioral models of change. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 20(1), 32–44. https:/
/doi.org/10.1037/h0101038

McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2004). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and
scandalous fall of Enron. London: Penguin Books.

Nicholas, M. (2017). The Little Black Book of Decision Making: Making Complex Decisions
with Confidence in a Fast-Moving World. Hoboken: Capstone.

Peterson, M. (2017). An Introduction to Decision Theory (2 edition). Cambridge, United

States ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Schon, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Alder-
shot: Basic Books.

Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science.

The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.

Werhane, P. H. (2014). Obstacles to Ethical Decision-Making: Mental Models, Milgram And

The Problem Of Obedience. Place of publication not identified: Cambridge University
Press.

Academia Letters, August 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Nick Mapletoft, nick.mapletoft@ucq.ac.uk

Citation: Mapletoft, N. (2021). Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s perspective. Academia
Letters, Article 3361. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3361.

6
Yaacoub, H. K. (2016). Authenticity: Sustainable Benefits Beyond Performance. HR People
and Strategy, 39(4), 47–49.

Academia Letters, August 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Nick Mapletoft, nick.mapletoft@ucq.ac.uk

Citation: Mapletoft, N. (2021). Right decisions from wrong decisions: One manager’s perspective. Academia
Letters, Article 3361. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3361.