Perception can be characterized as a perplexing procedure by which individuals select, compose, and translate sensory stimulation into an important and sound image of the world (Davison, Berelson & Steiner, 1964). In a similar vein, perception is tied in with getting, choosing, securing, changing and sorting out the data provided by our senses (Goldstein, Barber & Legge, 1978). The other significant idea regarding perception is 'action.' Action alludes to one's activity, for example, moving the body because of the perceptual procedure. People have particular sorts of mental projects on the proper behaviour viably in various kinds of association; and there are two speculations of action that people hold. The first is regularly communicated as expressed convictions and qualities. The second one is really utilized and can along these lines just be construed from watching their practices (Argyris, 1999).
For instance: There are often contradictions among the people in the organizations in connection to pay and stipends, authoritative back up, approaches and techniques and the work environment itself. A person who shows an positive frame of mind may see above variables as great and helpful for workplace while the others may think of them as insufficient. Representatives likewise look at themselves on occupation task.
On the off chance that a job is allocated to one person who may consider the task in abundance to his job privilege despite what might be expected on the off chance that he isn't given the job, he may consider it as disregarding him in distribution of responsibilities.
Why decision making?
We are all in a general sense decision makers. All that we do intentionally or unwittingly is the consequence of some decision. The data we assemble is to support us get events, so as to grow great decisions to settle on choices about these events. Not all data is valuable for improving our comprehension and decisions. To settle on a decision we have to know the problem, the need and motivation behind the decision, the criteria of the choice, their subcriteria, partners and gatherings influenced and the elective moves to make. We at that point endeavor to decide the best option, or on account of resource allocation, we need priotities for the decision to assign their proper offer of the resource
Background
How perceptions works in organisation?
The investigation of perception is significant in the organization since it is vital for the manager to see people effectively regardless of their status and see every one of the circumstance as near the genuine actuality or as it exists by interpreting the sensory reflects in right manner.Perception is result of sensation and is a lot more extensive in its tendency. It includes watching information, choosing, and arranging the information dependent on sensory reflects furthermore, interpreting equivalent to per identity traits of the perceiver. That is why no two people can see a worker in a similar way, for one he might be effective while for the other he might be seen as futile.
There are two variables, which affects human conduct. First is internally caused conduct – alludes to interior factors on which individual has a full control, furthermore the remotely caused behaviour refers to the conduct which has been caused because of external components and that the person
has no influence over it. Attribution theory recommends that when we assess human conduct, it is either inside caused or it is caused because of outside variables as clarified previously.
Distinctiveness: For assessment purposes lets take a case of Z individual arriving late schedule for job. When we do interpretation there are two elements, one in the case of arriving late is common or irregular conduct. On the off chance that it is normal, it is credited to internal factor on which Z has full control. At the point when the conduct is irregular at that point it very well may be ascribed to external variables. In the previous circumstance individual could be directed properly in the later circumstance, the outside components can't be revised. In the event that the external components are high, at that point late coming ought not be attributed to the individual conduct.
Consensus: This factor alludes to group conduct. On the off chance that the whole gathering taking the same route arrived late on job, the causation is ascribed to external components. In any case by some shot in the event that Z just was late, at that point the causation would be internal.
Consistency: If the conduct of Mr. Z is consistence, that if that he is always arriving late then attribution ought to be to internal elements. In such cases there is a high internal causation. On the off chance that Z arrived late once then the causation would be low furthermore, ascribed to external variables. More consistence the conduct, the more the eyewitness is slanted to credit it to internal causes. It has been seen that we have the propensity to under estimate the impact of external elements and overestimate the impact of internal elements or individual variables while doing perception. This phenomenon is known as the fundamental attribution error. There is likewise a self-serving bias error brought about by the people who will in general quality their own accomplishment to internal causation like capacity, diligent work and self-esteem and the disappointment, to external components like luck. This phenomenon is known as a self-serving bias showed by the people.
Hence, we can conclude that individual’s perception is main causation of the internal and external variables of human conduct.
How Decision making in an Organisation works ?
Decision-making includes the choice of a strategy from among at least two conceivable options so as to arrive at an answer for a given issue. Most strategic decision-making models that have been affected by economic theories affirm verifiably or unequivocally that a manager or just as a worker, as a specialist of a firm, ought to make decision that will accomplish the company's objectives, one of which is the maximization of the organization's esteem. This perception recommends a key distinction between strategic decision making models for firms and decision making models for representatives. That is, decisions of representatives might be arranged towards the individual-level maximization of specific goals, for example, professional success or social status as opposed towards the organization's objectives, for example, augmenting the estimation of the firm. There can be variations in decisions made in groups or by individuals.
To settle on a decision in a sorted manner to produce needs we have to disintegrate the decision into the accompanying advances.
Define the issue and decide the sort of learning looked for.
Structure the decision hierarchy from the top with the goal of the decision, then the objectives from a broad perspective, through the intermediate levels (criteria on which subsequent elements depend) to the lowest level (which usually is a set of the alternatives).
Construct a lot of pairwise examination frameworks. Every component in an upper level is utilized to think about the components in the dimension promptly beneath with regard to it.
Use the priorities obtained from the comparisons to weigh the priorities in the level immediately below. Do this for every element. Then for each element in the level below add its weighed values and obtain its overall or global priority.
Continue this process of weighing and adding until the final priorities of the alternatives in the bottom most level are obtained.
Group Decision making V/s Individual Decision making
Group Individual
A group has capability of gathering more and full data contrasted with an individual while deciding. An individual settles on brief decisions. While a group is dominated by different individuals, settling on decision making is very tedious. Additionally amassing group mrmbers takes lot of time.
An individual while settling on any choice uses his own instinct and perspectives. While a group has numerous individuals, such a large number of perspectives and numerous methodologies and consequently better basic leadership. Individuals don't escape responsibility. They are responsible for their demonstrations and execution. While in a group it is difficult to consider any one individual responsible for a wrong choice.
A group finds hidden ability and core competency of representatives of an organisation. Individual decision making spares time, cash and vitality as individuals settle on brief and consistent decisions. While group decision-making takes a lot of time, cash and vitality.
An individual won't consider over each part intrigue. While a group will consider enthusiasm of all individuals from an organisation. Individual decisions are increasingly focused and rational when contrasted with gathering.
How individual’s perception affects decision making process?
All elements of problem identification and decision making process in an organisation are influenced by perception. Critical analysis of impact is as followed:
Individuals specifically interpret what they see based on their advantage, foundation, experience, and mentalities. This factor enable individuals to speed-read others yet not without the danger of attracting a precise picture. Subsequently, individuals' decisions will be disabled by wrong perception.
Individuals draw a general impression around a person based on a single characterstic. This adversely influences their decision as they will judge on the basis of what good versus bad and not the person’s actual behaviour (Viswesvaran, Schmidt & Ones, 2005) .
When an individual's attributes that are influenced by correlations with other individuals as of late experienced who rank higher or lower on similar qualities is termed as contrast effect. This factor likewise influences decisions quality.
People rely on generalizations every day because they help them make decisions quickly. They are a means of simplifying a complex world. This will affect decision making process as stereotyping will not give an accurate trait/value of an individual.
At the point when individuals are excessively confident about their knowledge, experience or feelings ,it can cover us from reality and cause individuals to go for risks, certain they're right in their decisions.
This occurs because our mind appears to a disproportionate amount of emphasis to the first information it receives. This results in not to take the optimal decisions as once a anchor is set, different decisions are made by changing far from that anchor, and there is a predisposition toward interpreting other data around the stay.
We have a natural tendency to do what makes us feel better, so we regularly just tune in to or regard the information that lines up with our very own perspectives. This leads us to dismiss any data that restricts our convictions. In any case, depending on material that substantiates pre-framed perspectives prompts biased decision making
The tendency to confuse the probability that something will happen with the ease with which one can remember it is especially a problem for decision makers who are inexperienced or low in cognitive ability (Ofir, 2000).
An increased commitment to a previous decision in spite of negative information which is often creeps into decision making and affects it adversely.
Individuals in general accept dishonestly that we would have precisely anticipated the result of an event, after that result is really known. This will affirm the circumstance regardless of whether we trust that it was a wrong decision.
Individuals tend to overemphasize the outcomes of our productive activities, while in the meantime misjudging the results of our harmful activities. It can make individuals settle on terrible decisions, as they believe they're in a more gainful remaining than they are.
Often when people are scheduling work they think of the best-case situation, then blindly presume the end result will follow the plan, without considering any elements – unexpected or otherwise – that might cause delays.
An individual's very own qualities, wants and way of life all shading their basic decision making abilities, which can fundamentally influence how an organization picks the correct option.
Women place greater emphasis on non‐financial and personal goals and are more likely than men to see their contributions to the quality of the decision making cycle as their competitive edge (Carter, Williams & Reynolds, 1997).This difference in length of thinking in problems will lead to more accuracy in making decisions as well as much time consumed for taking a decision by women.
There are differences in what problems to focus on, the depth of analysis, importance of logic and rationality, and preference for individual vs. group decision making.
Individuals are typically substance to locate a worthy or reasonable answer for an issue as opposed to an ideal one. The way toward settling on choices utilizing rationality as opposed to a characterized prescriptive model in not sufficiently compelling in taking the best decision.
Individuals make decisions by constructing simplified models that extract the essential features from problems without capturing all their complexity. So, people seek decisions that are satisfactory and sufficient. They tend to choose the first acceptable solution encountered rather than the optimal one. This may not ensure the best decisions.
This analysis explains us that individual’s perception regarding a issue varies from person to person. It helps them judging the scenario in negative or positive ways which affects the decision making process. The perceptions by the individual influence the quality of decision.
Conclusion
In organisations groups and individuals make decisions.Decision making often occurs in response to a problem. It requires interpretation and evaluation of information and alternative solution of actions.The quality of decision is influenced by individual's perception.As problem definition varries person to person we can conclude that decision making by individuals is directly affected by their perceptions. Hence, decisions by individuals are majorly perception based.
References
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell
Carter, N., Williams, M., & Reynolds, P. (1997). Discontinuance among new firms in retail: The influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender. Journal Of Business Venturing, 12(2), 125-145. doi: 10.1016/s0883-9026(96)00033-x
Davison, W., Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. (1964). Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. Journal Of Marketing Research, 1(4), 72. doi: 10.2307/3150383
Goldstein, E., Barber, P., & Legge, D. (1978). Perception and Information. Leonardo, 11(2), 154. doi: 10.2307/1574023
Ofir, C. (2000). Ease of Recall vs Recalled Evidence in Judgment: Experts vs Laymen. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 81(1), 28-42. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2864
Saaty, T. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal Of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-i
Saaty, T. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal Of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. doi: 10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F., & Ones, D. (2005). Is There a General Factor in Ratings of Job Performance? A Meta-Analytic Framework for Disentangling Substantive and Error Influences. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 108-131. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.108
Wagner, J., & Hollenbeck, J. Organizational behavior (pp. 57-65).
(2019). Retrieved from https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/
(2019). Retrieved from https://www.managementstudyguide.com/decision-making.htm
1(2019). Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/00251740310509553?fullSc=1