This paper presents a reflective discussion of management functions and decision-making from the perspective of an assistant bookstore manager. It examines how the role affects store operations, explores a supervisor's real-world risky decision involving a student with mild autism, evaluates the advantages and limitations of computer technology in decision-making, and considers when group decision-making is most effective. Drawing on personal experience, the paper illustrates key management principles including goal alignment, stakeholder balance, and collaborative problem-solving.
As an assistant manager in a bookstore, my role affects most areas of store operations. A core responsibility is handling low-level customer complaints in a way that satisfies the customer without embarrassing the employee involved. The goal is not to assign blame but to smooth the situation so that everyone can move forward. We want the customer to leave happy, and we also want the employee who interacted with them to feel that they are still valued and trusted.
It is always possible that an employee was a little short with a customer or made a small mistake. Unless the same type of problem appears repeatedly with one employee, we generally assume the customer was simply having a bad day. If a pattern does emerge with a particular employee, the store manager handles that directly. My job is to do whatever it takes to keep things running smoothly — a function that touches every part of the store, from the sales floor to the register.
Understanding how management roles interact across departments is essential to appreciating why an assistant manager's decisions ripple outward. If this role were absent, unresolved customer complaints could damage staff morale, reduce repeat business, and leave the store manager overwhelmed with issues that could otherwise be handled at a lower level. Nearly every department would feel that impact.
I have not personally been in a position requiring a high-stakes managerial risk, but I once witnessed a supervisor make such a decision while I was working part-time in a school. A student in the school was severely out of control. It later emerged that the principal had been deliberately provoking the child in order to trigger a breakdown — the principal wanted the student moved into a special education class.
My supervisor disagreed. She argued that the child would be a disruptive influence in either a regular or a special class, so a transfer was not a real solution. Instead, she arranged for a classroom assistant to support the student directly and organized training for the school staff to better understand and respond to his condition, which was identified as mild autism spectrum disorder. She took a professional risk by prioritizing the child's needs — the "product" in that setting — above institutional convenience. In the end, her approach worked well.
What I took away from that experience is that difficult decisions become stronger when they are clearly aligned with the organization's core goals. If a decision genuinely serves those goals, it is easier to defend, easier to execute, and more likely to succeed. Keeping the mission in view is what separates a calculated risk from a reckless one.
"Advantages and limits of computer models"
"When group decisions help or hinder organizations"
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.