THE ROLE OF BRAINSTORMING IN ORGANISATIONAL DECISION MAKING A CASE STUDY OF CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

Decision is the framework on which every organisation resolves.  It is a toll management  function.    Often  times,  it  is  mis-construed  that    only  the manager holds the key to effective decision making. In real life, however, a good manager is a galvanizer of diverse thoughts and talents in decision making.   That is where brainstorming  becomes  relevant.   It is meant to collate information from diverse sources pertinent to the decision in a round table.     By  so  doing  every  body  is  carried  along  and  adherence  is guaranteed.  This study looked at the role of brainstorming in organisational decision with respect to Central Bank of Nigeria.  It formulates the following objectives: to evaluate the differences in the productivity of Central Bank of Nigeria  due to Brainstorming  CBN);  to determine  how Brainstorming  BS affects ingenuity and innovation  in Central  Bank of Nigeria; to study  the extent to which Brainstorming BS influences industrial relations policies in Central Bank of Nigeria; to analyze the extent to which  Brainstorming BS influences  government policies in Central Bank of Nigeria; to investigate the impact on profitability in Central Bank of Nigeria due to Brainstorming BS. The hypotheses based the objectives were formulated.   The design of the study is survey which essentially used primary data generated from Central Bank of Nigeria Okpara Avenue for the analysis. Sample, proportion statistic was used to test the hypotheses. After the test it was discovered that: there is positive  correlation between productivity of Central Bank of Nigeria and Brainstorming;   there   is   correlation   between   ingenuity/Innovation   and Brainstorming  in Central  Bank of Nigeria; brainstorming  positively  affects Industrial  Relations  in  Central  Bank  of  Nigeria;  brainstorming  positively impacts on Central Bank of Nigeria policies. brainstorming positively impacts on profitability of Central Bank of Nigeria. It concluded that brainstorming is vital  to  the functioning  of  the  organisation.    It,  therefore,  recommended amongst  others  that:  administration  of  Central  Bank  of  Nigeria  Okpara Avenue  Enugu  should  formulate  labour  policies  bordering  on  welfare packages for the worker. This  would entrench the remunerations in black and white so that both the worker and the employer would know what to do at any time; administration of Central Bank of Nigeria Okpara Avenue Enugu generally should reward staff according to their inputs at work. This would encourage ingenuity, innovation and positive change

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In any organization, there is always the tendency to marshal the resources effectively to achieve the desired goals. The aim of any enterprise is to reach out to as many clienteles as possible in order to control the market. Increased market share beckons on the  management  to  make  pertinent  and  prompt  policies  that impact positively on the organization. These policies have to take cognizance of the divergent resources available which include: men, materials, money, machine and information technology. To take a relevant decision has never, been quite easy at any time.

Dons (2000:11) notes that a good decision has to come from experienced and well informed analysis of the resources available and their uses and explicabilities. Often times, and as is usually the case, the decision of the manager when taken solely, without due consultations with stakeholders boomerang. According to Peters (2001:89), brainstorming offers management to learn from all that matter in their

respective fields of operation so that friction would be minimized. As noted by Panyom (2002:181), brainstorming is the secret that guides the success of emerging management philosophies in Japan and South Korea. He noted that it helps management carry everybody along. He notes that the only difference in the far East model with the rest of the Western nations is that the bearer of the responsibility still is the management in the Western model while it is a collective responsibility in Japan. Otherwise, he noted, the modus operandi is the same. Nnamdi (2004:89), brainstorming has to operate in the framework of managerial competence of harnessing the resources of the enterprises to make valuable contributions to foster the course of the organized. He noted that everybody has meaningful input to make. Peterside (2005:112), states  that  brainstorming  places  responsibility on even  worker especially the affected ones to make valuable inputs which management cannot ignore all it wants to crash and Drucker (1979:34), notes that management takes painful look at all the operations of the collective whole called organization. The workability of each unit affects the others.

According to Martin and Bartol (2001:86), Departmental Purpose Analysis  (DPA) looks  at the productivity of each unit of each department to harness inputs overtime, to discover the bottlenecks to make comparative analysis with other units to make valuable suggestion for improvement. He noted that DPA has everybody in focus, what they do, how they affect the organization as a whole. In order words, every unit of organization is affected in DPA while transforming goes on in each unit with only those affected with management. Pedro (2006:235), notes that Brainstorming fulfils the purpose of DPA in every department. This study looks at brainstorming and departmental purpose analysis in Unilever and Nigeria Bottling Company.

Whereas the preceding discussion focused on an individual’s creative efforts this section examines techniques for enhancing creativity in group settings. Two major techniques are brainstorming and the nominal group technique. The brainstorming technique  is a means of enhancing creativity that encourages group members to generate as many novel ideas as possible on a given topic

without evaluating them. The four basic rules-do not criticize during idea generation, freewheel, offer many ideas, and improve on already  offered  ideas-were  discussed  earlier  in  the  chapter. Recent research suggests that computer-assisted brainstorming is superior to face-to-face brainstorming in the generation of ideas. At least part of the reason seems to be that there is more time for idea production because members can offer them simultaneously rather than having to listen to others or wait for them to make before offering an idea.

Nominal Group Technique

The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a means enhancing creativity and decision making that integrates both individual work and group interaction within certain ground rules. The technique was developed to foster individual, as well as group, creativity and to overcome the tendency of group members to criticize ideas when they are offered. The ground rules, or steps, involved in Management are as follows:

1.The  individual  members  independently prepare  lists  of  their ideas on a problem.

2. Each group member presents his or her idea in a round-robin session (one at a time from each group member in turn) without discussion. The ideas are recorded on a blackboard or flip chart so that everyone can see them. If a presented idea triggers a new idea for someone else, that member adds the new idea to his or her list for presentation on a future round-robin turn.

3.When all the individual ideas are recorded on the group list, the members discuss the ideas for clarification and evaluation purposes.

4.The  members  silently and independently vote on the  ideas, using a rank-ordering or rating procedure. The final outcome is determined by pooling the individual votes.

Evidence generally supports the effectiveness of NGT in developing   large   numbers   of   creative   alternatives   while maintaining group satisfaction. There is evidence that NGT may be more effective than brainstorming at generating ideas when groups are operating face-to-face, but is less effective than computer-assisted brainstorming. Thus there are a

number of means that managers can use to encourage creativity and innovation in work settings. While this chapter has focused on understanding various aspects of decision processes in organizations, the Supplement to this chapter highlights a variety of specific tools that can assist organization members in both planning and decision making.

Because the decisions that managers make have a profound impact   on   the   Success   of   the   organization,   managerial approaches to decision making have been the subject of considerable curiosity and research. In this section, we describe two major types of models regarding how managers make decisions: rational and non-rational.

The Rational Model

The Rational Model of managerial decision making, a view that was in vogue during the first half of this century, has roots in the economic  theory of the firm. In developing theories about the economic behaviour of business firm, economists tended to make the simplifying assumption that managers would always make decisions that were in the best

economic interests of their firms. This assumption was initially accepted  by  many  management  theorists.  According  to  the rational model, managers engage in completely rational decision processes, ultimately make optimal decisions, and possess and understand all information relevant to their decisions at the time they make them (including all possible alternatives and all potential outcomes and ramifications). If you recently purchased a major competitive item such as a personal computer or an automobile, you most likely experienced the difficulties of obtaining perfect information and making optimal decisions in complex situations. As a result, you will probably not be surprised to find that there are serious  flaws  in  the  rational  view  of  how  managers  make decisions. Nevertheless, the rational view of how managers make decisions. Nevertheless, the rational view is useful in providing a bench   mark   against   which   to   compare   actual   managerial decision-making patterns.

Nonrational Models

In contrast to the rational view, several nonrational models of managerial decision making suggest that

information-gathering and processing limitations make it difficult for managers to make optimal decisions. Within the nonrational framework,  researchers  have  identified  three  major models of decision making: satisficing, incremental, and garbage can.

Satisficing Model

During the 19505 economist Herbert Simon began to study the actual behaviours of managerial decision makers. On the basis of his studies, Simon offered. The concept of bounded rationality as a framework through which actual managerial making can be better understood. Bounded rationality says McJones (2008:61), means that the ability of managers to make optimal to be perfectly rational in making decisions is limited by such factors as cognitive capacity and time constraints. The concept suggests that the following factors commonly limit the degree to which managers are perfectly rational in making decisions:

1.Decision makers may have inadequate information, not only about the nature of the issue to be decided but also

about possible alternatives and their strengths and limitations.

2.Time and cost factors often constrain the amount of information that can be gathered in regard to a particular decision.

3.Decision makers’ perceptions about the relative importance of various pieces of data may cause them to overlook or ignore critical information.

4.The part of human memory that is used in making decisions can retain only a relatively small amount of information at one time.

5.The calculating capacities associated with intelligence limit the degree to which decision makers can determine optimal decisions, even assuming that perfect information has been gathered.

Rather  than  optimizing  their decisions, Simon, (1953:12) argues, managers follow the satisficing model, which holds that managers seek alternatives only until they find one that looks satisfactory. Satisflcing can be an appropriate decision-making approach when the cost of delaying a

decision or searching for a better outweighs the likely pay off from such a course. For example, if one is driving on an unfamiliar highway with only a little bit of gas left, it might be choice of a gas station within sight than to hold out for one’s favourite brand. On the other hand, managers sometimes make a habit of using the simplistic  economic  satisficing  approach  even  in  situations  in which the cost of searching for further alternatives is justified given the potential gain.

Increment Model

Another approach to decision making is the incremental models, which holds that managers make the smallest response possible that will reduce the problem to at least a tolerable level. This approach is geared more towards achieving short-run alleviation of a problem than toward making decisions that will facilitate long-term goal attainment. Like the satisficing model, the incremental model does not require that managers process deal of information in order to take action. One researcher likened incrementalizing to the actions of a home owner who deals with the problem of

insufficient electric outlets by using various multi outlet adapters, such as extention cords. In the long run, the home owner’s incremental decisions may prove to be unworkable, since additional-pieces of electrical equipment.

Garbage-Can Model

The garbage-can model of decision making holds that managers behave in virtually a random pattern in making non programmed decisions. In other words, decision outcomes occur by chance, depending on such factors as the participants who happen to be involved, the problems about which they happen to be concerned at the moment, the opportunities that they happen to stumble upon, and the pet solutions that happen to be looking for a problem to solve. The garbage-can strategy is most likely to be used when managers have no goal preferences, the means of achieving goals are unclear, and/or decision-making participants change rapidly. Desirable outcomes can sometimes be achieved with a garbage-can strategy, but this approach also lead to serious difficulties. Thus, while the garbage-can approach can

sometimes lead managers to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities, it can also lead to severe problems from which it may be difficult to recover. The garbage-can approach is often used in the absence of strategic management.

1.2    STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Management depends on the inputs from the respective units to make reaching and valuable decisions that would effect changes in the enterprise. Most often, each department submits its requisitions to management which may not include the extent to involvement and the results expected. Decisions taken in such circumstances without adequate inputs by the people involved often boomerang. The processes in management have to elicit responses from workers whose inputs are vital to the impeaching decisions.  Management  may decide  to  consult them  or leave them; the later choice has unfolded influences on the progress of the company. In a manufacturing outfit, there are many departments  and  each  department  is  made  up  of  very many sections and units. Each section and unit have unique functions to perform which

requires unique decisions at each stage. The problem has been that the intricacies of Brainstorming and Departmental purpose analysis are not adequately studied, so that management in both organizations still very much relies on the experience of the manager   rather   than   on   collective   inputs   of   the   affected employees. This often makes management loose cohesiveness of its workforce, not assess and positively influence, customer complaints very well, not discover ingenuity of workers, not reward workers according to their productivities not better assess the impact of the policies of government and labour on the company product as well as impacting favourably on customers.

1.3 THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The following objectives are raised for the study:

1.To evaluate the differences in the productivity of Central Bank of

Nigeria due to Brainstorming CBN).

2.To  determine  how  Brainstorming  BS  affects  ingenuity  and innovation in Central Bank of Nigeria.

3.To  study  the  extent  to  which  Brainstorming  BS  influences industrial relations policies in Central Bank of Nigeria.

4. To analyze the extent to which Brainstorming BS influences government policies in Central Bank of Nigeria.

5. To investigate the impact on profitability in Central Bank of

Nigeria due to Brainstorming BS.

1.4    RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The  following  research  questions  are  formulated  for  the

study;

1.What are the differences in the productivities of Central Bank of

Nigeria due to Brainstorming?

2.How  does  Brainstorming  elicit  ingenuity  and  innovation  in

Central Bank of Nigeria?

3. How does Brainstorming affect industrial relations in Central

Bank of Nigeria?

4.To  what  extent  does  Brainstorming  influence  the  impact  of government policies on Central Bank of Nigeria?

5.What is the impact of Brainstorming on the profitabilities of

Central Bank of Nigeria?

1.5    RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses are formulated for the study: H1:There is  positive correlation between productivity of Central

Bank of Nigeria and Brainstorming.

H2:There    is    correlation   between   ingenuity/Innovation   and

Brainstorming in Central Bank of Nigeria.

H3:Brainstorming positively affects Industrial Relations in  Central

Bank of Nigeria.

H4:Brainstorming positively impacts on Central Bank of Nigeria policies.

H5:Brainstorming positively impacts on profitability of Central of

Nigeria.

1.6    SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The  study  shall  benefit  the  management  of  Central  of Nigeria as well as other manufacturing sectors in understanding how better to handle challenges. It shall help

them relate with their workers better as well as eliciting positive responses among the customers. Management- Labour Relations shall benefits as management shall explore the industrial relations policies that favour its operations. Besides, ingenuity in the workforce shall be soon discovered for the good of the enterprise. Researchers and general public shall find the work very useful.

1.7    SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The respondents are managers, supervisors and workers and field workers (marketers) of the Bank. Their distribution is given below.

1.8    LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The respondents initially felt unease responding to questionnaire. They thought it was as ploy to pry into their privacies. However, the Public Relations Departments of the bank helped  in diffusing the fears of the respondents to made the academic nature of the questionnaire.

This prolonged the time for the completion of the study.

1.9    DEFINITION OF TERMS

!   Brainstorming

To solve problem by collective reasoning in a round table

!   Buffer

is  an  intermediate  repository  of  data  ?a  reserved  portion  of memory in which data is temporarily held pending an opportunity to complete its transfer to or from a storage device or another location in memory. (“Buffer (computer Science”).

Microsoft(R)Encerta(R)2009(DVD)).

!   Computer Virus

A small program, usually hidden inside another programme, that replicates itself and surfaces at a predetermined time to cause disruption and possibly destruction. Jonah &) Onah (2001:99).

!   Computer Aided Design

A system that uses computers to geometrically prepare, review and evaluate product designs. Nwosu (2002:41).

!   Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM)

The computerized integration of all major functions

associated with the production of a product. McJones (2010:115).

!   Computer integrated information system

An   Information  system  that  involves  the  use  of  computer technology. Peterside (2006:113).

!   Hackers

Individuals who are knowledgeable about computers and who gain unauthorized   entry   to,   and   sometimes   tamper   with, computer networks and files of organizations with which they have no affiliation. Andy (2010:41).

!   Horizontal Communication

Lateral or diagonal message exchange either within work-unit boundaries, involving peers who report to the same supervisor, or across work-unit boundaries, involving individuals who report to different supervisors. McDons (2009:30).

!   Innovation

A new idea applied to initiating or improving a process product, or service. Johnson (2010:68).

!   Outsourcing

To relive function to a new contractor

!   Outsourcee

Person or organization that performs the new function outsource

!   Outsourcer

Person or organization that gives out function to other to perform usually to serve course or time.

!   Teamwork

Group work to achieve a common goal

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :