Of the three modes of decision- making introduced in chapter 6 (tractablefluid, vortex- sporadic, familiar- constricted), which one would you use if your nonprofit were considering whether to expand a successful program?

To move to a new location? To enter into a collaboration with two other organizations?

What steps would you take in each case?

Transcribed Image Text:

Modes of Decision-Making From their extensive research on strategic decisions, Hickson, Butler, Cray, Mallory, and Wilson (1986) identified three different ways of making decisions that take into account the manner in which the process unfolds. In fluid processes, action appears to unfold quite smoothly, with the main activity conducted at regularly scheduled meetings through set committees. As a result, the process tends to suffer fewer delays and impediments. Fewer experts are called upon, but they are respected for their knowledge and opinions. Although this kind of decision is made at the highest or- ganizational level and can be precedent-setting, it is generally reached quite quickly, in a matter of months. Obtaining financial support for a new program is an example. In larger organizations, the development director might initiate the process, while in smaller settings this might fall to the executive director. In either case, the main deliberations would take place at meetings of the board's fundraising committee, with staff supplying information as needed. If a grant or contract is sought, the funder's established deadline for submitting a proposal would place time parameters on the process. In sporadic processes, many delays are common due to a variety of obstacles, from outright resistance to the matter at hand, which is often highly consequential and po- tentially controversial, to having to wait for various reports to be generated. A number