Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
COURSE SYLLABUS
School of Management
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS
Course Information
The teaching assistant will mainly be responsible for: 1) providing communications bridges between the
instructor and the class, 2) conducting library searches for updated materials, 3) copying necessary
reading articles, and 4) distributing teaching evaluation forms.
- 1-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
Course Description
This is a Ph.D. level course intended to enrich students' understanding of decision making in
organizations and provide some necessary literature background for further academic research in this
area. As the foundation for organizational theory and strategic management, organizational decision
making has long been considered the most important and fundamental topic in organizational research.
Simon (1947), for example, claimed decision making to be the “heart of organizations.” Price (1968)
regarded decision making as “the necessity in all organizations.” Scott (1987) also considered decision
making as the basic operation of an organization. It is the common belief that for any organization to be
effective, it is necessary to have sound decision making.
Throughout this course, we will cover different perspectives including normative, descriptive, and non-
rational aspects of decision making. Various theories and approaches under these perspectives will be
investigated. We will view decision making from three levels: individual, group, and
organizational/strategic levels. In addition, we will consider the impact of uncertainty and ambiguity on
decision making, examine the context in organizational decision making such as environment, structure
and process, explore the roles of information technology and international culture in decision making, and
discuss ethics issues related to decision making. Finally we will bring in some of the emerging thoughts
on decision making.
Grading Policies
This course requires extensive readings, active discussions, and intelligent research work. According to
the university policy, beginning from Fall 2008, the final grading scale for graduate coursework has
become: A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, F, and I (incomplete). For our course, a student’s final grade will be
based on a weighted average grade of the following three components (weekly participation, term paper,
and presentation of term paper). The individual grade for each of the three components will be similar to
that of the final grade, with the exception that it will include an additional grade of A+ for exceptional
work.
Students are expected to come to class being prepared for and actively involved in discussing the assigned
readings, which will be selected from the list in the syllabus. For each of the weekly assigned article, one
to two students will be responsible for leading class discussions. Each discussion leader, individually,
should also submit to the instructor a two to three page (double spaced) critical review containing his/her
findings, critiques, extensions, and applications of the ideas and methods from the article. The quality of
each student's discussion will be evaluated in terms of the following questions:
- 2-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
− Does the student demonstrate a basic understanding of the assigned reading materials?
− Can the student identify the common themes in the readings and use these themes to integrate and
compare the articles?
− Does the student use the readings as a base to develop new ideas or insights for potential new
projects?
− Can the student formulate appropriate critiques of the readings and defend his/her position in
discussion with other class members?
A student’s weekly participation credit may be reduced if he/she misses portions of the class.
Each student is required to submit a written term paper to address an important organizational issue
through a decision making angle. This paper can be either theoretical, empirical, or something in between,
but must have the strong potential of becoming a full publishable paper with future additions. It is due at
the instructor’s office at 1:30 PM, April 24, 2009.
A theoretical paper should follow the style of Academy of Management Review. The grading of the paper
will be based on the following criteria, with more weight on the significance and coherence of the
theoretical framework:
An empirical paper should follow the style of Academy of Management Journal. The grading of the paper
will be based on the following criteria, with more weight on the coherence between the theoretical
framework and the research method.
Some of the potential term paper topics may include, though not limited to, the followings:
- 3-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
perspective.
- The effect of network embeddedness on firms’ partner selection choices: Constraints and
opportunities
- FDI as firms strategic decisions: The roles of economical, cultural, and environmental differences
- Cultural influences on firms’ M&A decisions: A comparison between China and America
In the last class of the semester, each student will also present his or her paper to the whole class in about
fifteen minutes with some additional time for questions. The quality of the presentation will be based on
the following criteria:
There will be a designated office hour (9:00-11:00 AM, April 28, 2009) for final grade checking in the
instructor’s office. Students can use that time to pick up their graded term paper along with comments and
a final grade, and discuss their plan for improving and publishing the term paper.
In compliance with the university’s policy on confidentiality, no grade information will be transmitted via
phone or e-mail.
2. Class Policies
Throughout the semester, each student is expected to be on time for the class and follow the university’s
guideline on student conduct with regard to plagiarism and other dishonorable behaviors.
Students should also keep in mind that anything discussed in the classroom should be kept in context and
not relayed to other faculty members or students as this may cause sensitive reactions due to
misinterpretations, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
BK: Chapters 1-2. Introduction and overview; Understanding how decisions happen in organizations.
RP: March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. 1958. Decision making theory. In James G. March and Hebert A.
Simon, Organizations, p. 137-150, 169-171. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Also in Oscar Grusky and
- 4-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
George A. Miller (eds.) 1981. The sociology of organizations (2nd ed.), p. 135-150. New York:
Free Press.
RP: Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H. and Tversky, A. 1988. Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive
interactions in decision making. In David E. Bell, Howard Raiffa and Amos Tversky (eds.)
Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions, p.9-32. Cambridge
University Press.
RP: Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., and Saint-Macary, J. 1995. Opening up
decision making: The view from the black stool. Organization Science, 6(3): 260-279.
RP: Shimizu, K. 2007. Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat-rigidity thesis: Combinative
effects on organizational decisions to divest formerly acquired units. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(6): 1495–1514.
BK: Chapter 15. Bounded rationality, indeterminacy, and the managerial theory of the firm.
RP: Halpern, J. J. and Stern, R. N. 1998. Introduction: Beneath the social science debate: Economic
and social notions of rationality. In Jennifer J. Halpern and Robert N. Stern (Eds.) Debating
rationality: Non-rational aspects of decision making, pp. 1-17. Cornell University Press.
RP: Simon, H. A. 1978. Rational decision making in business organizations. Paper presented at the
1978 Nobel Prize reception. Also in American Economic Review, 69(1979): 493-513.
RP: Townley, B. 2002. The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(1): 163-179.
RP: Ethiraj, S. K. and Levinthal, D. 2004. Bounded rationality and the search for organizational
architecture: An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3): 404-437.
RP: Ocasio, W. 1999. Institutionalized action and corporate governance: The reliance of rules of CEO
succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 384-416.
RP: Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and
experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 113-137.
RP: Argote, L., Devadas, R. and Melone, N. 1990. The base-rate fallacy: Contrasting processes and
outcomes of group and individual judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 46: 296-310.
- 5-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
RP: Paese, P. W., Bieser, M. and Tubbs, M. E. 1993. Framing effects and choice shifts in group
decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56: 149-165.
RP: Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., and Schulz-Hardt, S. 2007. Group decision
making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model.
Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 459-479.
RP: Eisenhardt, K. M. and Zbaracki, M. 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic Management
Journal, 13: 17-37.
RP: Hitt, M. A. and Tyler, B. B. 1991. Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives.
Strategic Management Journal, 12(5): 327-351.
RP: Nutt, P. C. 1998. Framing strategic decisions. Organization Science, 9(2): 195-216.
RP: Elbanna, S. and Child, J. 2007. Influences on strategic decision effectiveness: Development and
test of an integrative model. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4): 431-453.
RP: Hendry, J. 2000. Strategic decision making, discourse, and strategy as social practice. Journal of
Management Studies, 37(7): 955-977.
BK: Chapter 4. Organizational choice under ambiguity: Decision making in the chemical industry
following Bhopal.
RP: March, J. G. 1989. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. In James G.
March (ed.) Decisions and organizations, p.266-293. New York: Blackwell.
RP: Mosakowski, E. 1997. Strategy making under causal ambiguity: Conceptual issues and empirical
evidence. Organization Science, 8(4): 414-442.
RP: Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Maule, A. J., Glaister, K. W., and Pearman, A. D. 1999.
Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(10): 977-985.
RP: Hough, J. R. and White, M. A. 2003. Environmental dynamism and strategic decision-making
rationality: An examination at the decision-level. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5): 481-489.
RP: Gibbons, R. 1998. Game theory and garbage cans: An introduction to the economics of internal
organization. In Jennifer J. Halpern and Robert N. Stern (Eds.) Debating rationality: Non-rational
aspects of decision making, pp. 36-52. Cornell University Press.
- 6-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
RP: Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1): 1-25.
RP: Masuch, M. and LaPotin, P. 1989. Beyond Garbage Cans: An AI model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1): 38-67.
RP: Carlson, K. D. and Connerley, M. L. 2003. The staffing cycles framework: Viewing staffing as a
system of decision events. Journal of Management, 29(1): 51-78.
RP: Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. 1974. Organizational decision making as a political process: The
case of a university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 135-151.
RP: Feldman, M. S. and March, J. G. 1981. Information in organizations as signal and symbol.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 171-186.
RP: Walter, J., Lechner, C., and Kellermanns, F. W. 2008. Disentangling alliance management
processes: Decision making, politicality, and alliance performance. Journal of Management
Studies, 45(3): 530-560.
RP: Camberer, C. E. 1998. Behavioral economics and nonrational organizational decision making. In
Jennifer J. Halpern and Robert N. Stern (Eds.) Debating rationality: Non-rational aspects of
decision making, pp. 53-77. Cornell University Press.
RP: Elsbach, K. D. & Elofson, G. 2000. How the packaging of decision explanations affects
perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): 80-89.
RP: Tetlock, P. E. 2000. Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure
depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2): 293-326.
RP: Guler, I. 2007. Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influences on
sequential decision making in the venture capital industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52:
248-285.
- 7-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
RP: Weick, K. E. 1995. The nature of sensemaking. In Karl E. Weick, Sensemaking in organizations,
p.1-82. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
RP: Heracleous, L. 2001. Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep
structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(4): 755-778.
RP: Orton, J. D. 2000. Enactment, sensemaking and decision making: Redesign processes in the 1976
reorganization of US intelligence. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2): 213-234.
RP: Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy Of Management
Journal, 48(1): 21–49.
RP: Leidner, D. E. and Elam, J. J. 1995. The impact of executive information systems on
organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Organization Science, 6(6): 645-664.
RP: Forman, C. 2005. The corporate digital divide: Determinants of internet adoption. Management
Science, 51(4): 641-654.
RP: Kim, S. M. and Mahoney, J. T. 2006. Mutual commitment to support exchange: Relation-specific
IT system as a substitute for managerial hierarchy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5): 401-
423.
RP: Jones, T. M. and Ryan, L. V. 1997. The link between ethical judgment and action in
organizations: A moral approbation approach. Organization Science, 8(6): 663-680.
RP: Flannery, B. L. and May, D. R. 2000. Environmental ethical decision making in the US metal-
finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 642-662.
RP: Spicer, A., Dunfee, T. W., and Bailey, W. J. 2004. Does national context matter in ethical
decision making? An empirical test of integrative social contracts theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(4): 610-620.
RP: Lu, Y. and Heard, R. 1995. Socialized economic action: A comparison of strategic investment
decisions in China and Britain. Organization Studies, 16(3): 395-424.
- 8-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
RP: Johnson, J. P., Korsgaard, M. A., and Sapienza, H. J. 2002. Perceived fairness, decision control,
and commitment in international joint venture management teams. Strategic Management Journal,
23(12): 1141-1160.
RP: Chen, X. P. and Li, S. 2005. Cross-national differences in cooperative decision-making in mixed-
motive business contexts: the mediating effect of vertical and horizontal individualism. Journal of
International Business Studies, 36(6): 622-636.
BK: Chapter 13. Naturalistic decision making and the new organizational context.
BK: Chapter 16. The scarecrow's search: A cognitive psychologist's perspective on organizational
decision making.
RP: Maitlis, S. and Ozcelik, H. 2004. Toxic decision processes: A study of emotion and
organizational decision making. Organization Science, 15(4): 375-393.
RP: Dane, E. and Pratt, M. G. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making.
Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 33-54.
RP: Kijkuit, B. and van den Ende, J. 2007. The organizational life of an idea: Integrating social
network, creativity and decision-making perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6):
863-882.
- 9-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
Off-campus, out-of-state, and foreign instruction and activities are subject to state law and University policies and
procedures regarding travel and risk-related activities. Information regarding these rules and regulations may be
found at the website address http://www.utdallas.edu/BusinessAffairs/Travel_Risk_Activities.htm. Additional
information is available from the office of the school dean. Below is a description of any travel and/or risk-related
activity associated with this course.
The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and regulations for the orderly
and efficient conduct of their business. It is the responsibility of each student and each student organization to be
knowledgeable about the rules and regulations which govern student conduct and activities. General information on
student conduct and discipline is contained in the UTD publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided to all registered
students each academic year.
The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline within the procedures of recognized and
established due process. Procedures are defined and described in the Rules and Regulations, Board of Regents, The
University of Texas System, Part 1, Chapter VI, Section 3, and in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities
of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Copies of these rules and regulations are available to
students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting
the rules and regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).
A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of citizenship. He or she is
expected to obey federal, state, and local laws as well as the Regents’ Rules, university regulations, and
administrative rules. Students are subject to discipline for violating the standards of conduct whether such conduct
takes place on or off campus, or whether civil or criminal penalties are also imposed for such conduct.
Academic Integrity
The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic honesty. Because the value of an
academic degree depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by the student for that degree, it is
imperative that a student demonstrate a high standard of individual honor in his or her scholastic work.
Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements, acts or omissions related to applications for
enrollment or the award of a degree, and/or the submission as one’s own work or material that is not one’s own. As
a general rule, scholastic dishonesty involves one of the following acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or
falsifying academic records. Students suspected of academic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for other classes, and from any other source is
unacceptable and will be dealt with under the university’s policy on plagiarism (see general catalog for details).
This course will use the resources of turnitin.com, which searches the web for possible plagiarism and is over 90%
effective.
Email Use
The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and efficiency of communication between faculty/staff and
students through electronic mail. At the same time, email raises some issues concerning security and the identity of
each individual in an email exchange. The university encourages all official student email correspondence be sent
only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email address and that faculty and staff consider email from students official only if
it originates from a UTD student account. This allows the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in the
identity of all individual corresponding and the security of the transmitted information. UTD furnishes each student
with a free email account that is to be used in all communication with university personnel. The Department of
- 10-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
Information Resources at U.T. Dallas provides a method for students to have their U.T. Dallas mail forwarded to
other accounts.
Withdrawal from Class
The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-level courses. These dates and
times are published in that semester's course catalog. Administration procedures must be followed. It is the student's
responsibility to handle withdrawal requirements from any class. In other words, I cannot drop or withdraw any
student. You must do the proper paperwork to ensure that you will not receive a final grade of "F" in a course if you
choose not to attend the class once you are enrolled.
Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities, of the university’s
Handbook of Operating Procedures.
In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades, evaluations, or other fulfillments of academic
responsibility, it is the obligation of the student first to make a serious effort to resolve the matter with the
instructor, supervisor, administrator, or committee with whom the grievance originates (hereafter called “the
respondent”). Individual faculty members retain primary responsibility for assigning grades and evaluations. If the
matter cannot be resolved at that level, the grievance must be submitted in writing to the respondent with a copy of
the respondent’s School Dean. If the matter is not resolved by the written response provided by the respondent, the
student may submit a written appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not resolved by the School Dean’s
decision, the student may make a written appeal to the Dean of Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the deal
will appoint and convene an Academic Appeals Panel. The decision of the Academic Appeals Panel is final. The
results of the academic appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.
Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of Students, where staff
members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and regulations.
As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work unavoidably missed at the semester’s end
and only if 70% of the course work has been completed. An incomplete grade must be resolved within eight (8)
weeks from the first day of the subsequent long semester. If the required work to complete the course and to
remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the specified deadline, the incomplete grade is changed
automatically to a grade of F.
Disability Services
The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with disabilities educational opportunities equal to those of
their non-disabled peers. Disability Services is located in room 1.610 in the Student Union. Office hours are
Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make those reasonable adjustments necessary to eliminate
discrimination on the basis of disability. For example, it may be necessary to remove classroom prohibitions against
tape recorders or animals (in the case of dog guides) for students who are blind. Occasionally an assignment
requirement may be substituted (for example, a research paper versus an oral presentation for a student who is
hearing impaired). Classes enrolled students with mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in accessible
facilities. The college or university may need to provide special services such as registration, note-taking, or
mobility assistance.
- 11-
Organizational Decision Making Spring 2009
It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the need for such an accommodation. Disability
Services provides students with letters to present to faculty members to verify that the student has a disability and
needs accommodations. Individuals requiring special accommodation should contact the professor after class or
during office hours.
These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Professor.
- 12-