Do one of the following: 1) Describe a deliberative or decision-making process you have witnessed in an organization. Discuss this process making uses of some of the models and concepts that you read about in Graber and/or Spee and Jarzabkowski (eg. phases of decision-making, decision-making errors, strategic planning). Either make a recommendation for improving the process or explain why the status quo worked well. 2) Read this article about the history of decentralization and re-centralization of the NYC school system. Comment on how these restructurings have affected decision-making within the system and whether this has been for the best or not.
Monthly Archives: October 2014
Public Meetings and Hearings
Do one of the following: 1) Describe a public meeting or hearing in which you have been involved. How successful do you consider it to have been as a forum for decision-makers to get meaningful guidance from the public? Describe the factors that either led to its success or contributed to its ineffectiveness. 2) Study this Summary and this chart that explain James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process. Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this process as an alternative to traditional public meetings and hearings.
The Filibuster
The filibuster has been defended as a great tradition of the US Senate and a great protection of the right of political minorities against political majorities. But, like any tool or tactic, it can be used for good or ill. Do you think that the filibuster is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing? Why? Would you recommend any changes to the procedure? Consider the article “Filibusters and Cloture in the US Senate” for an account of filibuster procedures and their history in the US Senate if you are at a loss for details.
Did 12 Angry Men Get It Wrong?
By now you are well aware of how easy it is to “cherry pick” evidence. In the article you just read, Mike D’Angelo makes the case that the jurors in 12 Angry Men made a big mistake in their assessment of the evidence: while there was room for reasonable doubt about any of the pieces of evidence taken individually, their combined weight really leaves no room for doubt. Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?
Colin Powell’s Speech to the UN
You have learned a lot about the heuristics, biases, and cognitive shortcuts that can lead any of us to wrong conclusions. And you have now watched a substantial portion of Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations, presenting evidence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. As we know, there turned out not to be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Which of the heuristics, biases, and cognitive shortcuts you have learned about might have lead Powell and others to believe so strongly that the weapons were there?