Description
University of Greenwich
BUSI1702: Organisational Decision Making
Summative Assessment: Individual Report
Word Count: 2500 words
Deadline: 10th December 2025
8.Assessment Details
8.1 Summative assessment: individual report
Task: You are individually required to write a 2,500-word essay (+/-10% excluding references) about an organisational decision of your choice. It is recommended that you (i) consider an organisational decision that concerns sustainability, ethics, or equality issues in business and/or management practices; (ii) choose an organisation from the 2024 Forbes 2000 list; and (iii) choose an organisational decision that has been implemented during the last 7 years. Your report must draw on the concepts and theories covered in this Module and follow the structure presented below. We also encourage you to be as imaginative as possible and include tables, graphs, and figures in your report.
Key dates
Submission deadline: Submit your individual report by 17:00 (5pm), Wednesday, 10 December 2025 via the submission link on Moodle. Please note there is a grace period, please consult the webpage here for more information: https://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/student-and-academic-services-sas/updated-extenuating-circumstances-faqs
Extenuating Circumstances (EC) submission deadline: If you have obtained approval for an EC submission, submit your report by TBC.
Suggested report structure
Your report should consist of the sections below. The word count is a recommendation, but we encourage you to follow it as much as possible. The word count excludes tables, graphs and figures and the reference list.
1.Introduction: Provide a succinct introduction to the organisational decision that you would like to analyse, including information about what the decision was about, and when the decision was made. [300 words]
2.Problem framing: Provide more detailed information to contextualise the organisational decision focussing on the organisational problem(s) that the decision relates to. [400 words]
3.Stakeholder analysis: Identify the stakeholders that are most relevant to this organisational decision. You are expected to apply the stakeholder salience model (three attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency) to analyse the ways that each stakeholder can affect and/or is affected by the decision (i.e. CEO, human resources management team, etc). You could choose to structure your analysis according to stakeholder groups or the attributes shared by the different stakeholders (i.e. high legitimacy and urgency; low power). [400 words]
4.Decision considerations: Drawing on academic theory, and practice discuss whether the decision effectively addressed the organisational problem(s) that is related to. Use behavioural decision-making theory to analyse different ethical considerations, as well as other factors (both external and internal for example dealing with risk or uncertainty, human bias, etc) that have informed this decision. Provide arguments both for and against the decision that was made. [900 words]
Recommendations: Discuss what could have been done differently or what has been done exceptionally well that other organisations could learn from.
5.You are required to link your recommendations with at least one theory or concept covered in this Module. Critically discuss the extent to which this theory or concept could be translated into good practice. [500 words]
10.References
Provide references to all the sources of information that you used to support the arguments in your assessment (both formative and summative). Make sure to use both in-text citations and include a reference list at the end of your presentation and your report. All references must follow the Harvard Referencing Guide provided on the Module’s Moodle page. You are expected to draw on readings recommended by this Module when describing and discussion a theory and/or concept. You are also expected to conduct independent research on relevant reading yourself.
Avoid making unreferenced, ambiguous, and generic commentaries on a topic that add little to no value to your arguments. It is critical to substantiate your statements with evidence provided by empirical research and subject experts. Apply an evidence-based approach to developing and strengthening arguments would be beneficial for both your academic performance and your professional development in whichever career that you intend to pursue.
Before citing any references, make sure to evaluate the quality of the references by considering the following aspects. You can read more about how to assess the quality of qualitative studies and quantitative studies via the embedded direct links to the BMJ journal articles.
1.Currency
- How recent is the information?
- Is it current enough for your topic?
- To what extent does this information reflect the latest research findings?
2.Credibility
- Who is the publisher and is it reputable?
- Who is the content creator or author and what are their credentials?
- What is the publisher’s interest or motivation (if any) in this information? Who sponsored the publication of this information, if any? In particular, pay attention to the extent to which this publication serves the purpose of advertisements or public relations management.
3.Reliability
- What kind of information is included in the resource? Is content of the resource primarily opinion or fact? To what extent has it considered different perspectives?
- Does the creator provide references or sources for data or quotations?
- To what extent does the publication measure the things that it claims to have measured, if any? For example, a survey designed to explore depression, but measures anxiety would not be considered valid in making statements about depression.
Resource recommendations
Bazerman, M. H., Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. Wiley.
Read Chapter 9 on Managerial Decision Making (pp. 271-299) in Daft, R., and Benson, A. (2016) Management, Cengage Learning. 11th edition.
Korhonen, P.J and Wallenius J., (2020) Making Better Decisions, Balancing Conflicting Criteria, Springer International.
Radu, A., (2021) Critical Thinking for Managers: Structured Decision-Making and Persuasion in Business, Springer International.
Additional resources covering specific themes of each week
Week 1
Cabantous, L., Gond, J.-P. and Johnson-Cramer, M. (2010) Decision Theory as Practice: Crafting Rationality in Organizations, Organization Studies, 31(11), pp. 1531–1566.
Ireland R.D and Miller C., (2004) Decision-Making and Firm Success. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005) 18(4). Academy of Management, pp. 8–12.
Keeney, R. L. (1982) Feature Article—Decision Analysis: An Overview, Operations Research, 30(5), pp. 803–838.
Smith, G. F. (2003) Beyond Critical Thinking and Decision Making: Teaching Business Students How to Think, Journal of Management Education, 27(1), pp. 24–51.
Week 2
Smith, G., (1989) Defining Managerial Problems: A framework for prescriptive theorising, Management Science, Vol.35., No.8, pp. 963-981
Week 3
Mitchell et al., (1997) Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review 22, pp. 853–886.
Neville, B, et al., (2011) Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool. Journal of Business Ethics. Sep2011, Vol. 102 Issue 3, pp. 357-378.
Week 4
Barends, E. and Rousseau, D. (2018) Evidence-Based Management: How to Use Evidence to Make Better Organizational Decisions, Kogan Page.
Rousseau, D.M. (2020) ‘Making Evidence-Based Organizational Decisions in an Uncertain World’, Organizational Dynamics, 49(1).
Morrell, K. and Learmonth, M. (2015) ‘Against evidence-based management, for management learning’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4) pp. 520–533.
Week 5
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G. and Wijnberg, N. M. (2017) The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective, Organization Studies, 38(3–4), pp. 365–401.
Hodgkinson G. and Sadler-Smith E., (2018) The dynamics of intuition and analysis in managerial and organizational decision making, Academy of Management Perspectives,32(4), pp.473-492.
Kahneman, D. and Klein, G. (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree, The American Psychologist, 64(6), pp. 515–526.
Simon, H. A. (1987) Making Management Decisions: The Role of Intuition and Emotion, Academy of Management Perspectives, Academy of Management, 1(1), pp. 57–64.
Week 6
Bazerman, M. H. and Sezer, O. (2016) Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Celebrating Fifty Years of Organizational Behaviour and Decision-Making Research (1966-2016), 136, pp. 95–105.
Week 7
Holmes, R. M., Bromiley, P., Devers, C. E., Holcomb, T. R., & McGuire, J. B. (2011). Management Theory Applications of Prospect Theory: Accomplishments, Challenges, and Opportunities. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1069–1107,
Week 8
Artinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G. and Weibler, J. (2015) Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), pp. S33–S52.
Dane, E. and Pratt, M. G. (2007) Exploring Intuition and its Role in Managerial Decision Making, Academy of Management Review, 32(1), pp. 33–54.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 211(4481), pp. 453–458.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, 185(4157), pp. 1124–1131.
Week 9
Harrington, H.J., (1998) The creativity toolkit: provoking creativity in individuals and organizations, London. McGraw-Hill.
Week 10
Brown, B (2015) Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. London. Penguin.
To receive high quality, AI and plagiarism free solution to this task, please contact us through WhatsApp +254716353533
