Decision-Making Models

971 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: decision-making model sample paper

Decision-Making Models

Negotiations and decisions are a part of everyday business. In order to make a successful decision, it is necessary to understand how to make rational and sound decisions. Decisions that are rash, made on snap judgments, and past experiences can prove detrimental to a business. A deficit in basic thinking and decision making is felt at all levels of an organization (Gary, 1997). Decisions can have long term and short term impacts on organizations and their world in which they exist (Turner & Dean, 2008). In order to understand the process of making a sound and good decision, it is necessary to define and understand several decision-making models. These models help to make clear the issues to be addressed and the goals that need to be obtained before a final decision is made. This paper will discuss the zero sum game, win-win, satisfying solutions, and the fixed pie models.

Zero-sum game can play an important role wherein one entity wants or needs to dominate the other. Of the several decision-making models that can be implemented, the zero sum game is one decision model used in negotiations. In this instance, there is a winner and a loser. There is no give and take or compromise. The zero-sum can be seen in chess – only one player can win. However, in Monopoly, if it is not played with the intention of having one winner, but several players to place, is a non-zero-sum game, also known as a win-win (US department of state, n.d.).

The second model is the non-zero, also known as the win-win model. This is used in compromises so that each of the “players” feels like a winner. The total amount gained is variable; therefore, both players win and lose objectives (Heylighen, 1993). In this model, eac...

... middle of paper ...

...9712C, 15-18.

Heylighen, F. (2000). Principia Cybernetica Web, in: Heylighen, F., Joslyn, C. and Turchin, V. (eds): Principia Cybernetica Web. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://pcp.lanl.gov/ZESUGAM.html

Spangler, B. (2003). Distributive bargaining: Beyond Intractability. Guy Burgess & Heidi Burgess (eds.). Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_bargaining.

Turner & Dean (2008). Testing the effects of prior performance on decision regret: Doubling-down, or all bets are off? Journal of Global Business Issues; 2, 1 13.

U.S. Department of State (n.d.). Consulate General of the

United States: Zero sum game between russia and the U.S. is gone with the cold war.

Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.vladivostok.usconsulate.gov/zerosum.html

Show More
Related

  • Brian Skyrms? Evolution of the Social Contract

    1637 Words  | 4 Pages

    Skyrms’ writing goes beyond traditional game theory, and exposes some weaknesses in its application. He rejects the theory’s traditional interpretation of rational actors and actions by discovering some glaring inconsistencies. Skyrms conducted a number of experiments using one-shot prisoners’ dilemmas. The ultimatum the author introduces in the first chapter serves as a simple example of a one-shot prisoners’ dilemma. In the initial form of the example, Skyrms proposes there is a cake that must be divided between two individuals. Each individual is looking to maximize his or her utility, and therefore, wants as much of the cake as possible. However, there is a third party, or what Skryms labels a “referee.” The two individuals must determine the percentage or portion of the cake they want and summit these requests to the referee. The percentages must not exceed 100%, or the referee will consume all the cake. It is therefore not in either parties’ best interest to request a significantly large portion. Additionally, if the total of the two requests is below 100% of the cake, the referee will take the left-over portion. The two parties will then aim to maximize their portion, however the best claim that an individual submits is dependent upon the other party’s claim. There are two interacting optimization problems (Skyrms 3, 4).

    Read More

  • Analyzing Axelrod's Prisoner’s Dilemma Tournaments

    2272 Words  | 5 Pages

    In the completion of this computer tournament, Tit for Tat achieved the highest score against all other strategies and was proven to be the better strategy in the prisoners dilemma. According to Axelrod, there were four properties that will make a strategy successful. The first being the ability to cooperate as long as the opponent was willing to cooperate and this is turn would avoid unnecessary conflicts. The second being provocation by defecting once the other opponent has defected. Thirdly, forgiveness, whereas the player was able to revert back to cooperation after being provoking to their opponent. Lastly, allowing for the players strategies to be clearly understood to allow for the other player to recognize their plans and course of action as to adapt to this pattern. Other factors making Tit for Tat so successful was it was robust, thus having strength to beat all strategies that it came up against. Tit for Tat also had stability whereas it could not be invaded by any other strategies. Also Tit for Tat was viable in that it worked successfully amongst all other strategies. All other program strategies that did not possess these properties were unsuccessful.

    Read More

  • Decision Making: A Five Step Model Of The Rational Decision-Making Model

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    In everyday real life situations, one keeps on making various decisions depending on a number of factors. Thus, decision-making is an integral tool in human life, and one cannot avoid it. In view of this, experts report that individuals make use of varying decision-making models to arrive at a decision that suits them. Here, the writer presents four decision-making models, namely the classical, behavioral, satisficing, and optimizing models.

    Read More

  • Negotiating Across Cultures

    1957 Words  | 4 Pages

    To achieve win-win outcomes, it is essential to separate the people from the problem. Thus, it is important to "Face the problem, not the people. The basic approach is to deal with the people as human beings and with the problem on its merits" (Fisher,Ury & Patton,1991, p.40-41).

    Read More

  • Game Theory: Thinking in Positive and Negative Possibilities

    1136 Words  | 3 Pages

    Ever since you were a child you have unknowingly used game theory. When your parents gave you the option to choose a candy bar, your brain started thinking of all the possibilities that depended on which candy you chose. You would think which one would taste better, make your feel better, and maybe be healthier for you. In the end, you would narrow your choices down to one piece of candy and eat it happily. Game theory is the use of theory to think through all of the positive and negative possibilities that could happen in a problem and try to maximize the positive. Game theory is not just one theory, throughout the years is has spread into six main games. These games are: zero sum games, non-zero sum games, simultaneous move games, sequential move games, one-shot games, and repeated games. Each of these games will be covered more in depth in this essay, with the exception of zero-sum games. Dalton will be writing about the zero-sum game in his essay.

    Read More

  • Buying a House with Distributive Bargaining Skills

    1212 Words  | 3 Pages

    The dynamic of a win-lose bargaining situation can cause negotiations to be exceedingly tense and volatile because only one side will gain at the end of these type of negotiations. This makes the concept of distributive bargaining controversial. Michael Wheeler, the author of the article, Three cheers for teaching distributive bargaining, discusses how many professors at an academy of management conference disapproved of distributive bargaining negotiation tactics. Wheeler explains, a huge majority of the attendees disapproved of exposing their impressionable pupils to the reality that in some negotiations, more for one party means less for the other” (Wheeler, 2012).

    Read More

  • Diplomacy Strategies

    1391 Words  | 3 Pages

    Schelling classified conflicts into two different types, a zero-sum and a nonzero-sum game. A zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant or participants. A situation in which participants can all gain or suffer together is known as a nonzero-sum game. Through these two different types of games, the real defining characteristic of a zero-sum game, compared to a nonzero-sum game, is that the sum of all gains by a player or group of players is equal to the sum of all losses for every possible outcome of that game while in...

    Read More

  • Importance Of Big Picture Thinking In Negotiation

    1290 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the first negotiation exercise, Arak and Barkan, I went into the negotiation unconsciously forgetting the “big picture” and started negotiating details on how to divide Area I based on getting as much points as possible. My perception of fixed-size pie and detailed thinking resulted in a competitive negotiation with no information exchange. As a result, we only realised towards the end that both Arak and Barkan have been tasked to reach the same total points and it was basically not enough points to reach win-win solutions just on Area I. After quick adjournment, in order to avoid war, we settled for equal points in Area I of 124 ...

    Read More

  • Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher

    1118 Words  | 3 Pages

    Whether or not we are aware of it, each of us is faced with an abundance of conflict each and every day. From the division of chores within a household, to asking one’s boss for a raise, we’ve all learned the basic skills of negotiation. A national bestseller, Getting to Yes, introduces the method of principled negotiation, a form of alternative dispute resolutions as opposed to the common method of positional bargaining. Within the book, four basic elements of principled negotiation are stressed; separate the people from the problem, focus on interests instead of positions, invest options for mutual gain, and insist on using objective criteria. Following this section of the book are suggestions for problems that may occur and finally a conclusion. In this journal entry I will be taking a closer look at each of the elements, and critically analyse the content; ultimately, I aim to briefly bring forth the pros and cons of Getting to Yes.

    Read More

  • Decision Making Model Paper

    1046 Words  | 3 Pages

    Make the decision through the integration of ideas and data, and negotiation and prioritization of ideas

    Read More

  • Difference Between Distributive and Integrative Bargaining

    1319 Words  | 3 Pages

    In a distributive bargaining approach, each negotiator’s objective is in direct conflict with the other. Looking at our situation, each party is concerned about the final price and has a limited number of resources. In starting a new business, Matt’s cash flow is low and there is limit on what he will spend for the service. On the other hand, Chris wants to ensure a high fee but also guarantee he will not lose money after buying gas for his lawnmower. The goal in distributive bargaining is not to find a mutually accepted outcome, but rather that one side gains preferential treatment. In other words, the final result is a win-lose scenario. In distributive bargaining, each party must decide before the negotiation where certain breakpoints lie. For Chris, maybe he can not afford more than $20 for the service, but is willing to pay $15. Conversely, Matt cannot accept less than $12, but would prefer $18. The spread between the resistance points, $12-$20, defines the bargaining range and where a settlement is likely to occur. If the resistance points did not overlap, a negotiation would no...

    Read More

  • Difference Between Integrative Negotiation And Distributive Negotiation

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    Relative value of distributive agreement is determined based on the competitiveness of the market which negotiation is conducted about. For instance, in a market under perfect competition, where there are many buyers and sellers, prices mainly reflect supply and demand, and the parties are simply price takers, the value of distributive approach to negotiation will be trivial since any potential agreement will be at a pre-determined “market price”. Slight variance to that value will trigger failure in the negotiation. On the other hand, under conditions of monopolistic competition where number of producers or provides is very limited and uniqueness of the product or service is extremely high,

    Read More

  • Improving Our Ability to Make Decisions

    1727 Words  | 4 Pages

    Facing a situation, you have to decide. For example, the fire surrounds you: What do you do? Jump through the windows and risk to kill yourself or to wait the firemen and risk to be burned to death if they come to late? Every decision that we make or don’t make shapes our future. Everyone tries to make good decisions. However, it is easy to overlook an important factor, miss a desirable option, or base the decision on unreliable information. In addition, fear of making a wrong choice can cause someone to postpone decisions, leading to miss opportunities. A businessperson must have the ability to make decisions under the pressure of time and circumstances. This ability needs a good knowledge of the decision making process.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Intraorganizational Bargaining

    589 Words  | 2 Pages

    Distributive bargaining: The parties bargain over division of a particular pie, and one party’s gain is a direct loss for the opponent. It is a fixed-sum game, or distributive bargaining. Integrative bargaining: Both sides search for solutions that would increase the size of the pie. In game theory models, this approach is referred to as a variable-sum game.

    Read More

  • Decision Making Reflection Paper

    883 Words  | 2 Pages

    Making decisions is an important part of our everyday life. Decisions define actions and lead to the achievement of goals. However, these depend on the effectiveness of the decision-making process. An effective decision is free from biases, uncertainties, and is deeply dependent on information and critical thinking. Poor decisions lead to the inability to achieve set objectives and could lead to losses, if finance is a factor. Therefore, it is important to contemplate about quality and ways to achieve it in decision-making, which is the focus of this paper. The purpose is to look into the needs of decision-making, including what one should do and what one should not do.

    Read More

More about Decision-Making Models

Open Document