英漢對照》業餘決策者手中的專業抉擇

■ 摘自培生出版《看金融時報學英文3》 How decisions are made within organisa-tions has fascinated students of management since, well, before management was even recognised as a field of study. In the 1930s, Chester Barnard put decision-making at the heart of The Functions of the Executive, one of the first books on what we now call gen-eral management. 組織如何做出決策，此一問題在管理學被視為一項研究領域之前就吸引著管理研究者。30年代時，切斯特．巴納德將決策作為《高階主管的職能》一書的核心，該書現被視為「一般管理」的最早作品之一。 Yet for all the efforts of researchers, con-sultants and serious- minded practitioners, decision-making in most organisations re-mains as amateurish as ever. Important de-cisions are often the result of ad hoc, on- the-fly initiatives. Formal processes designed to inform decision-making - think strategic planning and budgeting - contribute little or nothing to the debate. 然而，儘管研究人員、顧問和認真的從業者付出了種種努力，但在大多數組織裡，決策仍然和以往一樣停留在業餘水準。重要決策往往出自匆忙採取的即興行動。用於提供決策（思考戰略規劃與預算）資訊的正式程序，則對該項討論作用很小或根本沒用。 To be sure, the average manager has more information at his or her fingertips than was the case when Barnard, a practising manager at AT&T, was writing. But access to facts and figures does not, in itself, guarantee good decisions. Also crucial to the outcome are prior decisions about which facts are relevant, who should be involved in the de-cision-making process and how that process should be configured. Edgar Schein, profes-sor of management at MIT's Sloan School of Management and a veteran observer of or-ganisational dysfunction, has identified six generic processes by which decisions are made inside organisations： 的確，比起AT&T執行經理巴納德寫書當時，現在普通經理人的手上都握有更多資訊。但獲取事實和數據本身並不能保證會有好決策。事前決策對於結果同樣至關重要，它包括弄清楚哪些是相關事實、誰應當參與決策過程，以及該過程應如何設定。麻省理工學院史隆管理學院管理學教授愛德格．雪恩，對組織功能紊亂的觀察有豐富經驗，他界定出組織內部做成決策的六個過程（編按：節自《重新思考諮詢過程》一書）： 1.Decision by lack of response. Someone in the decision-making group makes a suggestion but it falls flat（he calls this "plop"）. No-body even comments before the group moves on. 1.在缺乏回應時所做的決策。決策團體中的某個人提出建議，但完全失敗（雪恩稱之為「撲通」，意指倒下）。在決策團體繼續討論前，甚至沒人發表評論。 2.Decision by formal authority. After a peri-od of discussion, the most senior person in the group decides what action to take. This is highly efficient but the outcome turns on the quality of the decision-maker. The decision may not be implemented if the group does not "buy in". 2.由正式權威人士做成決策。經過一段時間的討論，團體中最資深的人決定採取某種行動。這種做法非常有效，但結果要看決策者的素質而定。如果團體不「買帳」，此一決策或許不會被執行。 3.Decision by self-authorisation. The initiator of an idea takes the group's silence as tacit consent. Among the most famous examples is the Abilene Paradox, in which the family of management researcher Jerry Harvey found themselves driving on a hot day to Abilene, Texas, for dinner even though it later tran-spired that nobody really wanted to go. 3.自我授權的決策。持有某個想法的倡導者把團體的沈默看作默許。最著名的例子就是艾比林矛盾：管理學研究者傑瑞．哈維一家人，在大熱天驅車前往德州的艾比林去吃晚餐，但後來發現沒人真的想去。 4.Decision by majority vote. Attractive in theory but can lead to group politics and coalition building. The losing side often treats defeat as just a setback and looks for ways to win the next battle. 4.多數投票通過的決策。理論上頗有吸引力，但可能導致集團政治與結盟。投票失敗的一方往往將此視為挫折，並設法要在下次較量中獲勝。 5.Decision by consensus. By the time the group reaches a conclusion, everyone feels they have had a fair chance to influence the out-come, even if they still have reservations. A slow process probably worthwhile only for im-portant decisions. 5.共識形成的決策。當團體得出結論時，人人都覺得他們有平等的機會影響結果，即使他們仍有保留意見。這是個緩慢的過程，可能只有在重大決策時才有價值。 6.Decision by unanimity. The logically per-fect but least attainable method of decision - making. 6.全體一致形成的決策。邏輯上很完美，但卻是最不可能實現的決策方法。 As Prof Schein points out, the choice of decision-making process can have a huge im-pact not only on the course of action upon which the group decides, but also on its chances of being implemented. Yet, most of the time, managers are not even aware of the process they are using - let alone the poten-tial consequences. 正如雪恩教授所指出的，決策過程的選擇不僅對集團決定的行動路線、且對決策執行的機會均有重大影響。然而很多時候，經理人甚至不知道他們採用的是何種決策過程，更遑論潛在後果了。 Why the reluctance to put good theory into practice？ Lack of time and the impatience of youth must be part of the answer. Good deci-sion-making requires a passing acquaintance with organisational design, group psychology, game theory, information systems and more be-sides. Who has time for all this when there are pressing decisions to be made？ 為何不情願將好的理論付諸實踐呢？部分原因是缺少時間及年輕人缺乏耐心。良好的決策需要對組織設計、集體心理、賽局理論、資訊系統及其他許多方面的知識有初步瞭解。如果要做出緊急決策，誰還有時間去考慮這些呢？ 【2006/08/20 經濟日報】