Quantitative and Qualitative Decision Making

AD715_Fall-2019_W-3_Class-3_2019-09-17.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Quantitative and Qualitative Decision Making

Week 1 & Week 2: Summary

Lecture 3: Managing Group Decisions & Negotiations

In-Class Exercise: Team Discussion – Preparation for Assignment 1

Bb Discussion Forum W3: Q & A

AD 715: Quantitative and Qualitative Decision-Making

Class 3 (09/17/2019)

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

AGENDA

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019 2

Preparation for Class 3

Week

Date Lectures & Topics Readings Discussion Topics Assignments & Quizzes

Week 3, 9/17

Lecture 3 - Managing

Group Decisions and

Making Rational Decisions

in Negotiations

Bazerman, Ch.10, 11

e-Reserve

Robbins & Judge, Ch.9,

Ch. 14

Bb Discussion Forum

In-Class Exercise – Team

Discussion &

Preparation for A1

Individual Work: Prepare a first draft of A1 by 9/23

and contribute with questions & suggestions

during our in-class discussion in Class 4 on 9/24,

2019

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019 3

Preparation for Class 3

APPLICATIONS OF MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKING

LECTURE 3: Managing Group Decision and Making Rational Decisions in Negotiations

DECISION ANALYSIS & SUPPORT IN BUSINESS

FOUNDATIONS OF MDM

Conflict and Negotiation • Conflict Process • Conflict and Unit

Performance • Negotiation • The Negotiation Process

Making Rational Decisions in Negotiations • Decision-Analytic Approach

to Negotiations • Claiming Values in

Negotiation • Creating Value in

Negotiation • The Tools of Value Creation

Defining and Classifying Groups • Formal and Informal Groups • Stages in Group Development

1. Forming 2. Storming 3. Norming 4. Performing 5. Adjourning

Group Properties • Roles • Norms • Status • Size • Cohesiveness • Diversity

Group Decision Making • Debating Society, Groupthink,

Group Shift • Group Decision-Making Techniques

4Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

1-1

1-2

1-3

2-1

2-2

Defining & Classifying Groups

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Group: Two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives.

Formal Group: A designated work group defined by an organization's structure.

Informal Group: A group that is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined; such a group appears in response to the need for social contact.

Why do people form groups? Individuals tend to identify themselves socially as members of a group for the following reasons: • Similarity – group members have the same values, beliefs, and/or demographic similarities • Distinctiveness – group members share uncommon or rare characteristics (e.g. demographic,

alma mater) • Status – group members share non-economical qualities, such as honor, prestige, and religion • Uncertainty reduction – group membership helps some people to understand who they are

and how they fit into the world

1-1

EXAMPLE: Temporary Groups with Time-Constrained Deadlines (Punctuated-Equilibrium Model)

FIVE-STAGE-GROUP-DEVELOPMENT MODEL 1. Forming; 2. Storming; 3. Norming; 4. Performing; 5. Adjourning

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Defining & Classifying GroupsB 1-1

Defining & Classifying GroupsB

Some temporary groups with time-constrained deadlines do not follow the conventional five-stage model, but another model with a unique sequence of actions or inactions (see the figure below), such as:

1. Initial meeting (A) where the group's direction and the date for completion (B) have been set up;

2. This first phase of group activity is one of inertia;

3. A transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half of its allotted time (=A+B)/2);

4. This transition initiates major changes;

5. A second phase of inertia follows the transition;

6. In preparation for the last meeting, the group is demonstrating markedly accelerated activity.

1-1

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Group PropertiesB

Roles Norms Status Size Cohesiveness Diversity

Group members are often characterized as role players, where a role is defined as a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit (group).

Because each individual can play more than one role, the others are trying to read her/his behavior and to understand the role the person is currently playing (at work, at home, in the church, in the sport club, and so on).

Defining characteristics here are: Role perceptions – an individual's view of how she/he is supposed to act in a given situation Role expectations – the way others believe a person should act in a given situation Role conflict – a situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations

All groups have established norms – acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the group’s members. Norms can cover different aspects of group behavior, such as: • performance norms – how to get the job done, levels of output (per hour,

day, week), what level of delay/interruption is appropriate • appearance norms – dress codes and other unspoken rules • social arrangement norms – with whom to eat lunch, whether to form or

not form friendships (on and off the job) • resource allocation norms – assignment of difficult jobs, distribution of

pay or equipment

The individual behavior of a group member can be demonstrated with three additional categories: 1. Conformity: the adjustment of one's behavior to align with the norms of

the others

2. Reference group: important groups to which individuals belong (or hope to belong) and with whose norms individuals are likely to conform

3. Deviant workplace behavior (antisocial behavior; workplace incivility): voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members

1-2

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Group PropertiesB

Roles Norms Status Size Cohesiveness Diversity

Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.

Status tends to derive from one of three sources (status characteristics theory): • the power a person wields over others • a person's ability to contribute to the group's goals

and success • individual personal characteristics

High-status individuals are often given more freedom to deviate from norms than are other group members. They are also better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers and speak out more often, criticize more, state more commands, and interrupt others often.

The size of a group affects the group's overall behavior, but the effect depends on the dependent variables: smaller groups are faster at completing tasks than are larger ones; if the group is engaged in problem-solving, large groups consistently do better.

The effects of the size of a group on the overall group behavior is often linked to the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually (also called social loafing).

There are several ways to prevent social loafing: • set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward; • increase intergroup competition, which again focuses on the shared

outcome; • engage in peer evaluation so each person evaluates each other person's

contribution; • select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups, and • if possible, base group rewards in part on each member's unique

contributions

1-2

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Roles Norms Status Size Cohesiveness Diversity

The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group's membership, the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another.

Culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform better over time—if they can get over their initial conflicts.

The impact of diversity on groups is mixed: • It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the

short term; • If members can weather their differences,

over time diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better;

• Even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong.

The degree to which group members are loyal to each other and are motivated to stay in the group is called cohesiveness. The relationship between group cohesiveness, performance norms, and productivity is shown on the figure, below and can be explained as follows:

• The relationship of cohesiveness and productivity depends on the performance- related norms established by the group.

• If performance-related norms are high, a cohesive group will be more productive.

Group Properties1-2

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

B Group Decision Making Comparison of Group Versus Individual Decision Making

Strengths of group decision making:

• Groups generate more complete information and knowledge.

• They offer increased diversity of views. • This opens up the opportunity for more

approaches and alternatives to be considered. • The evidence indicates that a group will almost

always outperform even the best individual. • Groups lead to increased acceptance of a

solution.

Weaknesses of group decision making:

• It is time consuming. • There is pressure towards conformity in groups. • A few members, or only one, can dominate

group discussion. • Group decisions suffer from ambiguous

responsibility.

Effectiveness and Efficiency:

• Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use.

• In terms of accuracy, group decisions will tend to be more accurate.

• On the average, groups make better-quality decisions than individuals.

• If decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are superior.

• If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective than individuals.

• If effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final solution achieves, groups are better.

• In terms of efficiency, groups almost always stack up as a poor second to the individual decision maker. The exceptions tend to be those instances where, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to people.

1-3

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

B Group Decision Making

Managing Group Decisions: Ideal Group Process

Teams, groups, or committees are excellent decision makers in many ways and are increasingly used at all organizational levels.

As anyone who has taken part in a group decision knows, • teams make better decisions than individuals; • but some of the absolute worst decisions are also made by

groups.

The quality of the outcomes of the group decision is directly linked to the organizational knowledge of how to structure and follow up the steps of the managerial decision-making process.

An ideal group process is illustrated in the Figure ‘Managing Group Decision (b)

The lesson from this illustration will be confirmed by anyone who has led a group: ‘good group processes do not emerge naturally, they must be managed – and they must be managed well’ [Russo, J.E., & Schoemaker, P. (2002)]

Managing Group Decisions: Three Possible Models

1-3

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

B Group Decision Making

Managing Group Decisions: ‘Debating Society’

In groups representing the 'Debating Society' model:

• Discussions drone on and on without resolution or deep, diverse conflicts occur that lead to a hostile impasse;

• The decision-making process forever expands;

• There is no closure and no action.

Managing Group Decisions: ‘Groupthink’

Groupthink is related to norms: the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.

As a result the group is convening too rapidly on the chosen conclusion. The symptoms of groupthink include: • Group members rationalize any resistance to the

assumptions they have made. • Members apply direct pressures on those who

momentarily express doubts. • Those members who hold differing points of view seek to

avoid deviating from group consensus by keeping silent. • There appears to be an illusion of unanimity.

Minimizing groupthink is possible if managers: • keep the group size less than 10 members; • encourage group leaders to play an impartial role; • appoint one group member to play the role of devil's

advocate; • use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse

alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection.

Another potential enemy of good group decision processes is the so-called Groupshift (or Group Polarization).

Groupshift describes:

• a change between the group's decision and individual decision that a member within the group would make;

• a shift that can be toward either conservatism or greater risk—but generally is toward a more extreme version of the group's original position.

Managing Group Decisions: ‘Groupshift’

1-3

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

B Group Decision Making Group Decision-Making Techniques

An idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives while withholding any criticism of those alternatives. • In a typical brainstorming

session, a half dozen to a dozen people sit around a table;

• the group leader states the problem in a clear manner, so that all participants understand;

• The guidance, "Think the unusual – nobody will criticize," encourages individuals to make unconventional suggestions; all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.

Interacting Groups

Brainstorming Groups

Nominal Groups

Electronic Meeting

Members interact with each other face to face.

Individual members meet face to face to pool their judgments in a systematic but independent fashion. • Discussions or interpersonal communications

during the decision-making process are restricted. • Group members are all physically present, but

members operate independently. • A problem is presented to the group meeting by a

moderator (one of the group members). • Before any discussion takes place, each member

independently writes down ideas related to the problem.

• After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.

• The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.

• Each group member silently and independently puts the ideas in rank order. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.

This is a computer-assisted group meeting, where members interact on computers, allowing for anonymity of comments and aggregation of votes. • The group meeting is organized in two

possible formats – face to face or online (video conferencing).

• Technical requirements include individual participant access to networked computers with a pre-installed software application (i.e., Adobe Connect, Go To Meeting, Echo 360, Skype).

• Issues are presented to the group members, and they type their responses into their computers.

• These individual but anonymous comments, as well as aggregate votes, are displayed to all.

• The level of qualification of the moderator and the initial level of preparation for the meeting are instrumental for group effectiveness.

1-3

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

B Group Decision Making Group Decision-Making Techniques1-3

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Conflict & NegotiationB 2-1 The Conflict Process

Conflict a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected (or is about to negatively affect), something that the first party cares about.

Relationship conflict (i.e., conflict between individuals in which perceived differences in style, background, or values are under attack) will distract any group from its productive work.

To manage and control conflicts, decision-makers have to distinguish between destructive conflict and productive conflict

COMPETITIVE DECISIONS

POOR CHOICES/DECISIONS

Moderate amounts of Task conflict (i.e., differences of opinion about the task at hand and how it should completed) are necessary and valuable if a group decision-making process is going to accomplish more than simple groupthink. • Higher conflict teams have more thorough and creative

discussion of decisions, gain a richer understanding of the issues, and develop a more cognitively complex prospective.

• In contrast low-conflict teams tend to overlook key issues or simply avoid analyzing the downside risk of the consensus option; their understanding of issues is often superficial or one-sided; and they often make poor choices.

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Conflict & NegotiationB 2-1 The Conflict Process

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Conflict & NegotiationB 2-1 The Conflict Process

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Conflict & NegotiationB 2-1 Negotiation

Distributive Bargaining is negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win-lose situation.

Negotiation (or bargaining) a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.

There are two general approaches to negotiation – Distributive Bargaining and Integrative Bargaining

Integrative Bargaining is negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Conflict & NegotiationB 2-1 Negotiation

THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS:

1. Preparing and Planning

Negotiation Strategy = BATNA = Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

Develop (i) your BATNA; (ii) the other site BATNA

2. Definition of Ground Rules

3. Clarification and Justification

4. Bargaining and Problem Solving

5. Closure and Implementation

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Conflict & NegotiationB 2-1 Negotiation

THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS:

1. Preparing and Planning

Negotiation Strategy = BATNA = Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

Develop (i) your BATNA; (ii) the other site BATNA

2. Definition of Ground Rules

3. Clarification and Justification

4. Bargaining and Problem Solving

5. Closure and Implementation

• Defining goals and objectives • Assessing the other party's goals and objectives • Developing a negotiation strategy, including

(i) your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) and (ii) the other site's BATNA

• Predicting the settlement range

• Who will do the negotiating? • Where will it take place? • What time constrains, if any, will apply? • To what issues will negotiation be limited? • Will the negotiators follow a specific procedure if an impasse is reached? • Preparation and exchange (between the parties) of the initial proposals

and demands.

• Based on the exchanged initial positions, both parties will explain, amplify, bolster, and justify their original demands.

• Both parties are informing and educating each other on the issues, why they are important, and how each party arrived at its initial demands.

• Exchange of any documentation that helps each party to support its position.

• The actual give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement. • Both parties will undoubtedly need to make concessions.

• Formalizing the agreement. • Development of procedures necessary for

implementing and monitoring the agreement • Closure: a formal contract with specifics, or a

handshake.

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Conflict & NegotiationB 2-1 Effective Negotiation

Four factors influence how effectively individuals negotiate

Personality

Mood/emotion

Culture

Gender differences

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Making Rational Decisions in NegotiationsB 2-2

The learning how to think rationally in two-party negotiation is based on (i) the examination how individual biases and heuristics are manifested in the

negotiation contest, and (ii) the information on cognitive biases created by the competitive environment

Expectations: • to present a framework for thinking about two-party negotiations

• to introduce prescriptive suggestions for improving decision making within this context

• to improve the quality of your outcomes as the focal negotiator

• to improve the total outcomes for all parties

Boston University MET AD715 © Dr. Zlatev, 2019

Making Rational Decisions in NegotiationsB 2-2

The decision-analytic approach to negotiations is based on an assessment of key sets of information that will determine the structure of the negotiation.

• Each party's alternative to a negotiated agreement • Determining the point (called the reservation point, or indifference point) at which

the negotiator is indifferent between a BATNA and impasse • Determining when you would walk away from the bargaining table and predicting

the same for the other party • Each party's set of interests • Identifying the difference between the opposite party's positions (what they asked

for) and their underlying interests (the motives behind these positions). • The relative importance of each party's interest • To be fully prepared to negotiate, you should know how important each issue is to

you and have a sense of how important each issue is to your counterpart • The best agreements are reached by trading off relatively unimportant issues for

more important ones

A Decision-Analytic Approach to Negotiations

Making Rational Decisions in NegotiationsB 2-2 Claiming Value in Negotiation

The bargaining zone framework assumes that each party has some reservation point below (or above) which the negotiator would prefer impasse to settlement. Reservation points are set at the value of the negotiator's BATNA.

• The area where the two reservation points overlap is known as a positive bargaining zone. • When the reservation points of the two parties do not overlap, a negative bargaining zone exists. • At the point of agreement, when both parties choose a settlement rather than impasse, their

actual reservation points overlap (this settlement point is one of many points within the bargaining zone).

One of the key skills of negotiation is to determine the other party's reservation point and to aim for resolution that is barely acceptable to the other party.

Making Rational Decisions in NegotiationsB 2-2 Creating Value in Negotiation

Through the process of identifying and adding issues, the parties have the potential to create value, thereby increasing the amount of total benefit available

In the process of value creation the two negotiating parties are discussing the boundaries of a positive bargaining zone: • by considering each other's interests (not just their stated positions), and • by trading off the issue that each party cared less about for the issue that each party cared more about

Trading on issues to create value occurs whenever negotiators run into differences with other parties

Creating value by betting on disagreement about the future (contingent contracts)

The most common form of trade consists of one party making a concession on one issues in return for a concession on a different issue from the other party (such as a lower price in exchange for faster payment or a larger quantity of goods). Factors used as trade accelerators can be: • differences in risk (risk-sharing strategies) • differences in time preference – might arise from individual, cultural,

or situational preferences among the parties • complimentary skill differences between parties • other differences (in tax status, accounting treatments, liquidity, etc.)

There are several ways in which contingent contracts can improve the outcomes of negotiations for both sides, such as: • building on differences to create joint values • helping manage biases • diagnosing disingenuous parties • establishing incentives for performance

Making Rational Decisions in NegotiationsB 2-2 The Tools of Value Creation

Below are six strategies for collecting that information. The list begins with strategies that work best when you trust the other party and continues with strategies that help create value when the partnership with the other side is competitive or even hostile:

Strategy 1 Build trust and share information

Strategy 2 Ask questions

Strategy 3 Strategically disclose information

Strategy 4 Negotiate multiple issues simultaneously

Strategy 5 Make multiple offers simultaneously

Strategy 6 Search for post-settlement settlements

Parties are trying to create optimal value in negotiations but they often lacked key information about the other side's interests and positions.

TRUST

Who are the stakeholders for Amazon: sellers & customers

What activities need to be performed to create and deliver the offerings to the customers?

How are the offerings to the customers created?

Why does the business model create values?

Task 1.2:

Preparation for A1

STEP 4: Writing the

managerial report

Jeff Bezos’ Sketch of Amazon’s “Flywheel Business Model”

Describe the business model of Amazon.com as of the end of the case (spring 2017)

C In-Class Exercise

NOTE: To learn more about Flywheel Business Model, review https://www.jimcollins.com/tools/How-does-your-flywheel-turn.pdf

https://hbr.org/2018/11/replacing-the-sales-funnel-with-the-sales-flywheel

https://amiusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/diagnostic-tool1.pdf

https://www.jimcollins.com/tools/How-does-your-flywheel-turn.pdf

https://hbr.org/2018/11/replacing-the-sales-funnel-with-the-sales-flywheel

https://amiusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/diagnostic-tool1.pdf

The history of Jeff Bezos’ Sketch of Amazon’s “Flywheel Business Model”

https://www.jimcollins.com/tools/How-does-your-flywheel-turn.pdf

In 2001, Jim Collins presented to Jeff Bezos one of the key findings of his book Good to Great, “The Flywheel Effect” as follows:

1. Create a list of replicable successes your enterprise has achieved. Variations on an essential idea count as replicable successes.

2. Compile a list of failures and disappointments. This should include new initiatives and offerings by your enterprise that failed outright or fell far below expectations.

3. Compare the successes to the failures and ask, "What do these successes and failures tell us about the possible components of our flywheel, and what isn’t in our flywheel?“

4. Using the components you’ve identified, sketch the flywheel. Where does the flywheel start—what’s the top of the loop? What follows next? And next after that? Each component of the flywheel should feed into the next stage of the flywheel. Outline the path back to the top of the loop and be able to explain why this loop cycles back upon itself to accelerate momentum in your particular context.

5. Diagram the entire loop using four to six components. If you have more than six components, you’re making it too complicated; consolidate and simplify the model to capture the essence of your flywheel.

6. Test the flywheel against your list of successes and failures. Does your empirical experience validate it? Tweak the diagram until you can explain your biggest replicable successes as outcomes arising directly from the flywheel and your biggest disappointments as failures to execute or adhere to the flywheel.

o The big winners are those who take a flywheel from ten turns to a billion turns rather than crank through ten turns, start over with a new flywheel, push it to ten turns, only then to divert energy to yet another new flywheel.

o When you reach a hundred turns on a flywheel, go for a thousand turns, then ten thousand, then a million, then ten million, and keep going.

o Apply your creativity and discipline to each and every turn with as much intensity as when you cranked out your first turns on the flywheel, nonstop, relentlessly, ever building momentum.

Describe the business model of Amazon.com as of the end of the case (spring 2017)

Task 1.2: C

https://www.jimcollins.com/tools/How-does-your-flywheel-turn.pdf

The history of Jeff Bezos’ Sketch of Amazon’s “Flywheel Business Model”

Bezos considered Amazon’s application of the flywheel concept “the secret sauce”:

o Lower prices led to more customer visits. o More customers increased the volume of sales and attracted

more commission-paying third-party sellers to the site. o That allowed Amazon to get more out of fixed costs like the

fulfillment centers and the servers needed to run the website. o This greater efficiency then enabled it to lower prices further. o Feed any part of this flywheel, they reasoned, and it should

accelerate the loop. o And so the flywheel would turn, building momentum. o Push the flywheel; accelerate momentum. o Then repeat, then again, and again, and again.

Brad Stone, The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon, Back Bay Books, 2014, ISBN-10: 0316219282

Describe the business model of Amazon.com as of the end of the case (spring 2017)

Task 1.2: C

Task 1.3: Amazon Core Competence-Market Matrix

Source: Rothaermel, F.T. (2018) Strategic Management, 4e, McGraw-Hill (based on Hamel Y Prahalad, 1994)

Building new core competences to protect and extend current market

position

Building new core competences to protect and extend current market

position

Leveraging core competences to improve current market position

Redeveloping and recombining core competences to compete in

markets of the future

Existing New N

e w

E x

is ti

n g

C o

re C

o m

p e

te n

Market

1 2

Using specific examples, contribute to a discussion of different ways that Amazon is diversifying for each one of the categories

1 2 3 4

What is Amazon's core competency?

In-Class Team Exercise (Class 3) 1. Build teams (ca. 5 members per team) 2. Each team member: select one example per category 3. Internal team discussion: Amazon “Flywheel Business

Model” - examples 4. Internal team discussion: which example per category

to present and why? 5. In-Class presentation by two of the team members

Question 1 (first team member): Task 1.2 Question 2 (second team member): Task 1.3

 2 min/team

 15 min/team

 total time 30 min.C In-Class Exercise

Preparation for A1

STEP 4: Writing the

managerial report

Task 1.2: Describe the business model of Amazon.com as of the end of the case (spring 2017) slides 28 --30

Bb Forum W3: Decision making on group level D

Select and review ONE of the suggested articles

Based on examples from one of the recommended articles selected by you, the lecture notes, the text, and other sources, discuss one or several of the themes:  group decision making,  conflict and negotiations,  making rational decisions in negotiations

Select and review one of the following articles: HBR, The Overcommitted Organization, Mortensen M at al, Sep-Oct 2017 HBR, Control the negotiation before it begins, Malhotra D., December 2015, pp. 67-72 HBR, Emotion and the art of negotiation, Brooks A, December 2015, pp. 57-64