Mintzberg’s Managerial Roles
In the Mintzberg’s Managerial Roles (Lewis et al. 2004), there are 4 types of decisional roles: entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and the negotiator.
The role of an entrepreneur is to create strategies to meet the goals and to capitalize on opportunities (Lewis et al. 2004). In the case study, Dallaire’s mission was to ensure that the peace agreement was to be carried out and to ‘prevent further bloodshed’. He planned four options for the deployment of the military to ensure an effective peacekeeping. When the Belgium troops were racist and acted aggressively, he took action by dealing with them directly. When Dallaire received information that there were elements within the inner circle out …show more content…
There were two types of choices in the case study: competing choice and choice suppression (Linstead & Fulop 2009).
Competing choice is when there are alternative choices and choice suppression is when information is withheld or altered. This could be for vested interest that results in a forgone conclusion. The UN wanted to have a cost efficient mission and wanted to deploy only a small troop leaving Dallaire with 2 competing choices. Dallaire wrote a report to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to urge them for more support and to deploy the military ahead of plan. This report was given to Booh-Booh to include it in his report however, this crucial piece of information was withheld and the choice was suppressed.
Pfeffer’s Four Organizational Decision-Making …show more content…
Also, he was to write a clear report after assessing the situation in Rwanda. His power and control was based on hierarchical authority (rational) and had to report up to the UN although he has some authority to make decisions in Rwanda. His decisional process was ad hoc (garbage-can) given the tight deadline to assess the situation. However, he also made decisions based on heuristics like estimating how many troops to deploy and standard operating procedures from the UN (bureaucratic). The expected outcome and rationale was to maximize (rational) the opportunity of improving the effectiveness of the peace agreement. It was also about stability in Rwanda and fairness (bureaucratic). There was also haphazard collection and use of information (garbage-can) because of the time frame. In addition, the information requirements were reduced because of the bureaucracy of the
In the Mintzberg’s Managerial Roles (Lewis et al. 2004), there are 4 types of decisional roles: entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and the negotiator.
The role of an entrepreneur is to create strategies to meet the goals and to capitalize on opportunities (Lewis et al. 2004). In the case study, Dallaire’s mission was to ensure that the peace agreement was to be carried out and to ‘prevent further bloodshed’. He planned four options for the deployment of the military to ensure an effective peacekeeping. When the Belgium troops were racist and acted aggressively, he took action by dealing with them directly. When Dallaire received information that there were elements within the inner circle out …show more content…
There were two types of choices in the case study: competing choice and choice suppression (Linstead & Fulop 2009).
Competing choice is when there are alternative choices and choice suppression is when information is withheld or altered. This could be for vested interest that results in a forgone conclusion. The UN wanted to have a cost efficient mission and wanted to deploy only a small troop leaving Dallaire with 2 competing choices. Dallaire wrote a report to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to urge them for more support and to deploy the military ahead of plan. This report was given to Booh-Booh to include it in his report however, this crucial piece of information was withheld and the choice was suppressed.
Pfeffer’s Four Organizational Decision-Making …show more content…
Also, he was to write a clear report after assessing the situation in Rwanda. His power and control was based on hierarchical authority (rational) and had to report up to the UN although he has some authority to make decisions in Rwanda. His decisional process was ad hoc (garbage-can) given the tight deadline to assess the situation. However, he also made decisions based on heuristics like estimating how many troops to deploy and standard operating procedures from the UN (bureaucratic). The expected outcome and rationale was to maximize (rational) the opportunity of improving the effectiveness of the peace agreement. It was also about stability in Rwanda and fairness (bureaucratic). There was also haphazard collection and use of information (garbage-can) because of the time frame. In addition, the information requirements were reduced because of the bureaucracy of the