Decision is regarded as an act of volition. It is a determination that something shall or shall not take place. The leaders of the organisation are the architects of decision. As a matter of fact, it is the manager's prime stock in trade. Depending upon the skills with which decisions are made and the firmness with which a course is set, the quality of the organisation's performance can be determined. The manager must face issues and decide on the courses to resolve them effectively. This in turn inevitably entails a selection -- selecting one course over another, accepting one point of view and rejecting others, or supporting one individual instead of another. The process of such selection may be reasoned out with fact, arrived at by hunch, or dictated by whim.

During the days of the individual entrepreneur, the leader's caprice was excused as an indulgence of executive prerogative. In an era of corporate and cooperative enterprise, such behaviour is outmoded. Yet the myth persists that the sceptre of leadership vests the manager with omniscience. Someone has expressed it this way: "When a subordinate makes a mistake, he is in trouble. When a superior makes a mistake, it's a new policy."

The concept of the executive as a repository of all wisdom deludes the unwary and ensnares the unscrupulous. The executive has merely to issue the instruction and the job is done. These decisions made by executive whim, may or may not fit the facts. This type of executive mind, of course, expects the facts to conform to the plan. The manager, in making decisions, must look to facts, not fancy.

The mechanics of decision making are none the less illusive. With the press of daily affairs, the manager may overlook the impact of his decision or indecision. The farther he is removed from the details of day to day operations, the more insensitive he becomes to the results of decision or indecision. Yet, most ironically, the higher he is in the organisation, the greater will be the impact of his judgment.

It is, however, to be determined if the failure to act on the part of the manager or the act itself will seriously impede or interfere with a significant number of people in the organisation. Actually, decision does not always mean action; a decision not to act may sometimes take more courage than that to act. To decide in the negative is ofcourse understandable but to refuse to decide at all will not be excusable. In fact, the manager's frequent "no" for a decision may reflect two intriguing aspects: either he has the wrong people on the job or they do not understand their jobs. In either case the manager may not be able to escape the onus of his own responsibility. Evidently, he has a problem in not clarifying work requirements or in not selecting the correct people for the job. Inevitably therefore, in the resolution of managerial problems, decisions must be made between two or more alternatives.

Still then some managers seem to approach their jobs with the attitude once expressed by US President Calvin Coolidge: "Don't you think that four-fifths of our troubles in this life would disappear if we would only sit and keep still?" Silence was a weapon for Coolidge: "Silence is best defence ..... Nine tenths of White House callers want something they ought not to have. If you keep dead still, they will run down in three or four minutes. If you even cough or smile, they will start up all over again."

If the manager is to fulfil his true role, he is ultimately pressed to a decision. This will entail going by these steps to organise his decision making process:

Defining the objective or the purpose to be served by a course of action. Someone has said, "A long journey begins with the first step." Determination of this first step will depend on the manager's knowledge of the result to be achieved by an action.

Seeking expert advices considered the most reliable source of intelligence. This step may be skipped when the manager is himself an expert and his own background and experience provide the necessary intelligence.

3) Getting the facts in order to assess the opportunities or the potential profits, to anticipate potential hazards, requirements of personnel, facility and financial requirements. The key point here is to get information that is available and to avoid speculation. The manager must remember that more often than not, the solution to a problem is found in merely rearranging existing information.

4) Identifying the alternatives if there are different ways of accomplishing the same purpose or whether or not the desired objectives can be attained through some other course.

5) Evaluating the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages to be ascertained.

6) Deciding when the facts are in, and after considering the alternatives and weighing the pros and cons. This is the time when the manager must decide because he has no further scope to guess, nor to entertain any misgiving.

7) Defining the plan, stating the objectives and assigning responsibility. This includes the "what," "when" and "how" of the whole plan and objectives. The assignment should be given to those who know how to do the job.

8) Following up is the last step in this phase. The decision to act is only the first step. When the manager has set the course, his concern from that point is to get the task completed.

The strategy of delay is adopted when the issue is not yet ripe for action. But if it is important enough not to drop, delay is the only sane course. It may however be kept alive or in the limelight for which the most effective technique can be to place the issue in the hands of a task force or a committee. Such a committee established for one specific purpose can be a valuable tool for management decision provided that: i) a definite time period is established for completing it after which it is dissolved; and (II) it is not required to make a decision that should be made by a manager.

Success in management lies in doing the right thing at the right time. To try to reach a solution before all aspects of a problem are clearly in view merely compounds the difficulty. When a problem first arises, the elements necessary for solution may not yet exist or may not yet be known.

The manager, in appraising the timeliness of action, may face two types of situations. First, he may be forced to act before his plan is ready; or, second, he may be able to let the plan "ripen." The first requires courage while the second, patience. In either case, the environment has a considerable bearing on the decision.

In assessing environment the manager's "feel" is probably as reliable as anything else, but there are a few tangible elements:

(i) Has there been a demand for the projected action?
(ii) Does the proposed action follow some other action that is now completed, or does it precede another that is ready for execution?
(iii) Does it carry out some programme initiated at a higher level of management?
(iv) Is it needed by some person or some group outside the organisation?
(v) Does it achieve a purpose which has been publicised; does it get someone "off the hook"?

Kazi Alauddin Ahmed is an industrial consultant.