Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing

Decision Making Group Assignment Based on the details on your country called Macondo provided in the Scenario, what choice is best for your countrys situation? What are the tradeoffs you are willing to make and Why? What are the potential consequences of your groups decision? Based on the current and past situation of Macondo, we consider that there are two objectives that as new President we must try to achieve. First and foremost, improve the quality of life of the citizens of Macondo. The second goal is to improve the relationship with and image of Macondo among the foreign countries and foreign companies, which might be willing to invest in the short and long term. Taking these objectives and into account, we chose to follow Alan Garcias strategy as: We will pay all the debt in the long term, while maintaining sustainability for domestic business by using the resources internally in a more efficient way. We will retain resources for future investments. For example, investing in infrastructure, industry, etc. Retaining the resources and internally investing in infrastructure will benefit the country and its people in the short, mid and long term. Fully paying in the long term will help establishing and preserving the relationship with the international community immediately.

By making this decision there are some compromises that we are willing to make: Continuous support from the international community in the long term vs. shortterm isolation. National economic and political stabilization vs. International credibility. Abundant resources circulate in the domestic economy lead to raise in inflation vs. scares of resources leads to less investments and even poverty.

Finally, observe how your group deals with the challenges it faces. How does your group make decisions? What criteria are used? Are all group members opinions considered fully? What do you notice about how members influence one another? Before we started our group meeting, each group member read the case, conducted an individual analysis and decided upon one course of action. Following the individual work, during our group meeting, each of us explained why he/she chose specific alternative. The criterion upon which we based our decision was the alternative's implications for either the short-term or the long term. In a majority-rule process, most of us agreed that in these kinds of cases, a leader should adopt long term thinking that would benefit the citizens while concurrently taking the international community into account. Even though at the end of the discussion, not all the members of the group agreed with the Alan Garcias alternative, we decided to choose it as our course of action, as most of the 1

Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing

members of the team considered it to be the best. Furthermore, two members of the group both originally from Latin America, conveyed the importance of adopting Alan Garcia's plan. They stressed that a similar plan was already taken more than 20 years ago in Peru, and it drove Peru's economy to its strongest levels, being the most highly rated country in the region by the big three credit rating agencies. We also noticed that each team member had a clear and concise voice, when speaking his/her mind regarding the topic. None of the members in the group overshadowed other, and it facilitated, as in other group project, adaptation of the majority-rule decision making process, after carefully considering all minority alternatives.