Tomada de decisão como prática: um estudo no Conselho Superior de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão de uma universidade federal brasileira

Abstract

The action of deciding on the basis of diverse information and opinions is one of the great challenges of managers in recent decades. Many relational structures are present in decisions, especially those of a collective nature, that is, decisions made by people at collegiate level. In these types of decisions, social interaction is central when the models and legislation available to support the decision, though in large numbers, are not always sufficient to promote support. When decisions involve legal differences and ethical dilemmas, the manager has to use more deliberative reasoning based on experience and integrative thinking. This thought when socially constructed in collective decisions has a character of action, of emergent conception and complementarity, as a social practice. The idea of practical wisdom - phronesis - of Aristotle (2014) allows understanding the judgments that do not find in the legislation sufficient parameters to mark the decision. Phronesis is a decision subsidy as a practice, considering the common good, or the good of the majority involved with the processes. I understood how opportune to carry out an empirical research in a higher council that makes collective decisions in a public university institution. The Higher Council for Teaching, Research and Extension (COUNI) is a superior deliberative body of a Brazilian Federal University in matters of academic nature, which makes decisions regarding teaching, research and extension in the institution. Thus, this study had the general objective to understand how decision-making takes place as a practice in a superior council of a Brazilian federal university. The structuring of the methodological path was made through observations, interviews and vignettes which were analyzed through the connections between discourse, context and act. This method allowed understanding the decision as a practice, mainly from its involvement with collective phronesis. Authors such as Kinsella (2012), Melé (2010) and Schon (1987), with their empirical evidence on phronetical decisions were taken as a basis for research, as well as Aristotle (2014). The results show the practice of the decision as having four activities that form its nexus: the creation of the processes, the management of the processes by the Secretariat of Administration of the Deliberative Organs of the investigated Institution, the report of the process and the council meeting. In such activities, there are discussions and statements about the interpretation of stakeholder requests, for purposes of both counselors and stakeholders, as well as influencing the rapporteur of their case with documents additional to the request. The legislation that governs the council is also part of the practice, as well as a know-how that guides the activities as an example of stakeholder participation in the meetings. The decision making practice in the council has emotions such as stakeholder anxiety and friendly relations between counselors. In this practice, phronesis occurs in the joint interpretations of the counselors, in the debates, in the actions of each activity propitiated by sagacity, experience, pragmatic resource, dialogical intersubjectivity. However, the decisions of COUNI are not all phronetical. Some deliberative reasoning has no ethical basis for the common good. Theoretical and practical notes justify this result. The main conclusion of this study is that collective decisions and their characteristics are constructors of reality. This reality has nuances, ethical aspects situated, which are influenced by several agents of the practice of the decision for its maintenance over time.