1.30AM Saturday morning, I was working as a host as a popular nightclub in Whistler, Canada. Standing on the edge of the dance floor I noticed a young man dancing inappropriately with a woman that did not appear to be consenting. The individual looked highly intoxicated, so I radioed my manager for a second opinion. My manager arrived and I informed him of my concern, he made the on the spot decision that the individual was too intoxicated to remain in the venue. My manager and I approached, he pulled the individual aside and informed him that he was intoxicated, and his behaviour was not in line with that required at our establishment. The individual was informed that he would be escorted from the premises.
The manager made the decision to ensure the right for everyone in the venue to have the same right to a fun night without being harassed. He also made the decision to comply with the 'Serving it Right' laws of British Columbia, Canada. I asked the individual to start moving toward the exit, the individual complied, but at several points turned to face me and hurled verbal abuse. I continually reminded the individual it was not my decision and that I was just performing my job. On exiting the venue the individual started yelling obscenities and creating a scene, disrupting other patrons.
The outcome of the decision was the individual left the venue without major incident, and the venue remained a safe, fun environment for all attending patrons. The decision made was structured, as it was the clear, unambiguous decision to ask the individual to leave based on his inappropriate behaviour. The decision was a programmed, operational based decision as it relied on a predetermined organisational procedure that dictated a certain response to ensure the continued day-to-day running of the establishment.
Rational Decision making Model
Figure 1: a typical normative model of the rational decision process
The fist step of the rational decision making model is to correctly identify the problem. If the problem is incorrectly identified, the proceeding decisions will differ in their ability to address the situation (Levy, 2006) . In the case of the young intoxicated man acting inappropriately at the establishment, was the problem that he was acting inappropriately or that he was intoxicated? While these were both problems, the manager decided that the individual being intoxicated was a more pressing concern, and one that was easier to remedy. There could also have been other possible base problems such as: are the bartenders over supplying patrons? Are patrons smuggling their own alcohol into the venue? Are patrons getting admitted to the venue already drunk?
The second and third steps are to establish decision criteria, and weight them. The decision criteria are factors that influence the decision makers capacity to choose one potential alternative over another (Levy, 2006) . In the case of the intoxicated individual, criteria could be: Will this individual continue to be inappropriate if he remains inside the venue? Will his behaviour tarnish the reputation of the establishment? Will the establishment loose their license if complaints are lodged? Will be become aggressive if he is asked to leave? As a manager in charge of the establishment, the continued financial longevity of the business is a primary responsibility. The manager is entrusted with safe guarding the license above all so this criteria is the heaviest weighted.
The fourth and fifth steps are to list, and analyse alternatives. There were two alternatives: let the patron remain inside the venue, or ask him to leave. The manager had to assess both alternatives, and the potential impacts they would have on the patrons, staff, and the venue. If the individual were to remain in the venue would his inappropriate behaviour hurt a patron, or the establishments brand? Would the establishment