scholarly journals Effectiveness of Leadership Decision-Making in Complex Systems

Systems ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie Hallo ◽  
Tiep Nguyen ◽  
Alex Gorod ◽  
Phu Tran
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Complex Systems ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Organizational Settings ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Outcomes Of Leadership

This paper traverses the domains of leadership and decision-making within various types of systems with different levels of complexity. The article presents some background about both leadership and decision-making, and then explores the concept of leadership decision-making and some of the factors involved. The paper then reviews complex systems and provides examples to differentiate complex systems from other systems. Finally, these strands are brought together with a consideration of leadership decision-making in complex systems and presentation of a framework to assist managers faced with decision-making in complexity, based on data collected in a survey. The aim and practical contribution of this paper is to improve the outcomes of leadership decision-making within complex systems, based upon the findings and on a decision aid model derived from them. The paper, therefore, should help people in real life and leaders within organizational settings to improve their decision-making effectiveness within the ever-increasing range of complex situations which are now widely encountered.

scholarly journals Measuring Conflicts Using Cardinal Ranking: An Application to Decision Analytic Conflict Evaluations

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Fasth ◽  
Aron Larsson ◽  
Love Ekenberg ◽  
Mats Danielson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
The Core ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
Differences Of Opinion ◽  
Decision Alternatives ◽  
Public Decision

One of the core complexities involved in evaluating decision alternatives in the area of public decision-making is to deal with conflicts. The stakeholders affected by and involved in the decision often have conflicting preferences regarding the actions under consideration. For an executive authority, these differences of opinion can be problematic, during both implementation and communication, even though the decision is rational with respect to an attribute set perceived to represent social welfare. It is therefore important to involve the stakeholders in the process and to get an understanding of their preferences. Otherwise, the stakeholder disagreement can lead to costly conflicts. One way of approaching this problem is to provide means for comprehensive, yet effective stakeholder preference elicitation methods, where the stakeholders can state their preferences with respect to actions part of the current agenda of a government. In this paper we contribute two supporting methods: (i) an application of the cardinal ranking (CAR) method for preference elicitation for conflict evaluations and (ii) two conflict indices for measuring stakeholder conflicts. The application of the CAR method utilizes a do nothing alternative to differentiate between positive and negative actions. The elicited preferences can then be used as input to the two conflict indices indicating the level of conflict within a stakeholder group or between two stakeholder groups. The contributed methods are demonstrated in a real-life example carried out in the municipality of Upplands Väsby, Sweden. We show how a questionnaire can be used to elicit preferences with CAR and how the indices can be used to semantically describe the level of consensus and conflict regarding a certain attribute. As such, we show how the methods can provide decision aid in the clarification of controversies.

The Effect of Perceived Consequence on Automation Reliance in a Human-Automation Collaborative System

2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (21) ◽  
pp. 1851-1855
Author(s):  
Neta Ezer ◽  
Arthur D. Fisk ◽  
Wendy A. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Automated Systems ◽  
Collaborative System ◽  
The Cost ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Attitudes And Behavior ◽  
Different Levels

As automated systems are entering new environments, some of which involve high-risk decision making, it is critical that we understand in what situations people will or will not rely on the recommendations of automated decision aids. It is theorized that in deciding whether to trust automation people consider perceived consequence, weighing the cost associated with inappropriate action or inaction and the psychological cost associated with verifying the aid. This study will address the effect that perceived consequence has on attitudes and behavior toward decision aids by exposing participants to different levels of consequence, manipulated by the cost associated with making a mistake and the cost needed to verify the aid. It is expected that as the cost of making a mistake increases and the cost of verifying the automation decreases, trust and reliance in a decision aid will decrease.

Use of an Atrial Fibrillation Medication Decision Aid Improves Knowledge and Process for Decision Making (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Beinfeld ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael Barry ◽  
Erika Poole ◽  
Adam Kunin
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Anticoagulant Therapy ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Baseline Group

BACKGROUND A rural community-based Cardiology practice implemented shared decision making supported by an evidence-based decision aid booklet to improve the quality of anticoagulant therapy decisions in patients with atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE To develop a practical workflow for implementation of an anticoagulant therapy decision aid and to assess the impact on patients’ knowledge and process for anticoagulant medication decision making. METHODS The organization surveyed all patients with atrial fibrillation being seen at Copley Hospital to establish a baseline level of knowledge, certainty about the decision and process for decision making. The intervention surveys included the same knowledge, certainty, process and demographic questions as the baseline surveys, but also included questions asking for feedback on the decision aid booklet. Stroke risk scores (CHA2DS2-VASc score) were calculated by Copley staff for both groups using EMR data. RESULTS We received 46 completed surveys in the baseline group (64% response rate) and 50 surveys in the intervention group (72% response rate). The intervention group had higher knowledge score than the baseline group (3.6 out of 4 correct answers vs 3.1, p=0.036) and Decision Process Score (2.89 out of 4 vs 2.09, p=0.0023) but similar scores on the SURE scale (3.12 out of 4 vs 3.17, p=0.79). Knowledge and Process score differences were sustained even after adjusting for co-variates in stepwise linear regression analyses. Patients with high school or lower education appeared to benefit the most from shared decision making, as demonstrated by their knowledge scores. CONCLUSIONS It is feasible and practical to implement shared decision making supported by decision aids in a community-based Cardiology practice. Shared decision making can improve knowledge and process for decision making for patients with atrial fibrillation. CLINICALTRIAL None

InformedTogether: A decision aid to support shared decision making about mechanical ventilation in severe COPD patients

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meliss Basile ◽  
Johanna Andrews ◽  
Sonia Jacome ◽  
Meng Zhang ◽  
Andrzej Kozikowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
Severe Copd
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document