A632.9.3.RB - Role of Emotion in Decision Making

As a decision maker, I must agree with Professor Baba Shiv of Stanford University in his findings of the importance of confidence (2011).  I must also iterate another important factor one of my former employers stated to me about the importance of perception of others as well.  In my experience, I am often confident in my decisions once I come to them, but my introverted personality often eludes a less than confident perception from others.  This perception of my confidence level causes those who I am giving my decision to question my confidence level.  After listening to Dr. Shiv's presentation, I understand how important this perception is as he compared the decisions of going into battle and the ultimate success or failure of the mission. 

In my history of decision making, I will share with you one decision which I was very confident as I moved through that decision to its consequences.  That decision was my decision to purchase my current car.  When I got a new job 7 years ago which required an extensively longer commute, I needed an automobile which had better gas mileage than my then 12 year old full sized pickup truck.  I knew that most likely the most fuel efficient automobiles would be in the form of a sedan or smaller car, and my large stature worried me for fitting in a car.  After two weeks of exhaustive research, I decided the car I was going to buy was the Hyundai Sonata.  It had great head room, and gas mileage meeting my two requirements.  The brand had decent ratings as well and I confidently marched to the dealership to purchase my first new car.  This has been a decision that has played out very well over the last 7 years.  I have had no regrets in my purchase.  This led me to make a second confident decision when we purchased my wife's car three years ago.  I believe confidence in your decisions helps you feel better about making them, which affects your perception of success as well.  As Dr. Shiv points out in his video (2011) it is important though to not blindly make decisions because of your confidence in yourself.  Each decision must be approached with the same diligent research. 

In a decision which I was not so confident in would be my decision to come back to college.  My undergraduate career was somewhat less than stellar, and I honestly doubted my ability to follow through and put in the effort to accomplish my goal of obtaining an advanced degree.  When I was accepted to ERAU, I still continued to doubt my ability and my conditional acceptance did not help my feeling of confidence in myself or my choice to go to school.  However, what the conditional acceptance did do was issue a challenge.  That challenge created an internal conflict of the doubt in my own ability and the desire to prove myself wrong for doubting.  With each course, I strive to meet my goal of proving myself wrong for doubting my ability.  The problem that I have with my lack of confidence is there is still an internal naysayer continually stating you can not succeed.  This same event plays with decisions which are external as well.  If you do not enter into them with confidence, those around you will doubt your decision and ability as well. 

Overall, our ability to make decisions with confidence needs to be something we focus on with absolute effort.  In part of my research for writing this blog entry, I watched a video by researcher named Daniel Goleman where he talked about the need to focus and how training ourselves, and working on those things which we identify as weakness will lead us to future success (Goleman, 2014).  I now recognize that my ability to have confidence and portray that confidence to myself and others is a skill which I need to further develop.


References:
Goleman, D. (2013). Focus, The Hidden Driver of Excellence. New York: Harper Collins.

Goleman, D. (2014). Focus, The Hidden Driver of Excellence. Presentation to Talks at Google.  
             Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yRmpcXKjY.

Hoch, S.J. & Kunreuther H.C. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.

Shiv, B. (2011). Brain research at Stanford: Decision making. Retrieved from YouTube.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

It is extremely important that decision makers realize their decisions are made through the four different contexts mentioned in the article by Snowden and Boone (2007).  As Snowden mentions, each decision context is a place of existence which the manager resides in while making their decisions (2002).  The Cynefin Framework outlines the 4 different contexts from which most decisions are made: Simple, Complicated, Complex, and Chaotic. 

Managers typically make most of their decisions using one of these four contexts.  Snowden warns us of the danger of getting too complacent and residing in only one of these zones and suggests that managers learn to adjust their decision style to fit the unique environment that exists for each situation (2002). 

The decisions that I make on a daily basis are usually in the Simple domain.  These decisions are characterized by repeating and consistent situations.  The results of each decision is known, and typically there is one right answer that exists.  One such decision that I make frequently in my current job is in the advising of students for the courses they are to take each term.  There is a set of required courses for the students to take, and a required number of hours the students must be enrolled for their financial aid requirements.  As those factors input the decision making process, we simply have to find the courses from the course offering list and apply them to their needs.  Each advisor on our campus makes these decisions for/with their students every term.  The danger of this is when we get entrained in our thinking (Snowden, 2002) and do not realize when our context shifts.  Things that cause this shift is when a student changes their major and we are advising for a major that is not typically our comfortable major.  The counselors for our college, do not realize why it takes me so long to advise students, but each student does have their own unique situation.  While I love the simple decisions, there is often complications that should be considered. 

A complicated decision is one that requires expert diagnosis.  As the advisor for my major, I often will get new advisees who have been advised in their previous semester by one of our general counselors when my program was full.  This adds complication to the mix as the Federal Aid program wants students to complete a two year degree in two years, which is very difficult to manage if a student is in one of those special situations.  In this case, it is important not to have analysis paralysis as there is often near infinite decisions which could give wide and varying results.  In this situation, I would follow a good practice of selecting the best courses for the student to get them on a similar track with hope of still completing on time.

One way that the Cynefin Framework can help me make improved decisions is to realize that there is seldom a single right answer to situations when we step outside of the Simple Context.  I need to understand that I have the ability and obligation to adapt my frame of reference to the situation which the decision calls for.  Most of my decisions should probably and do probably come from the complicated or complex contexts rather than the simple or chaotic as I often feel they do. 

If you need to make decisions based on incomplete data you are likely in the complex zone.  With complex, there may be multiple right answers depending on how those missing pieces were supposed to fall.  It is important in this zone to make a best response from the information you currently have at your disposal and wait for the resultant information of that decision to influence future choices.

The Cynefin Framework makes our decision-making better by: 1) Making us aware of the context with which we make our decisions.  Knowing that being in the wrong context can cause us to make wrong decisions is important.  2) The framework gives us knowledge about the complexity and helps us understand how complex decisions need to be made.  3) It gives us a set of steps on how we should make our decisions when we recognize which context we are in.  4) The framework gives us insight into what our level of responsibility is within each framework and how we should approach these tasks. and finally 5) the framework gives us a set of tools for dealing with each context, and where to seek additional information.

As I move forward in my career, I look forward to tackling future decisions using the Cynefin framework.  This approach has given me a new set of tools which has shed light on my frustrations of the past, and gives calm to handling future situations using this method.

References:

Snowden, D.J (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 Iss: 2 pp. 100-111. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270210424639 (Links to an external site.)

Snowden, D.J., and Boone, M.E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making.

A632.7.3.RB - Collaborative Decision Making

Seldom do the decisions we make only affect the person who is making the decision.  As this is the case, it is extremely important to query other stakeholders to gather their inputs to help guide your decision making process.  Ultimately, as the person who holds the duty of making the decision, and the responsibility of having made that decision, this action also brings with it another series of decisions as to how important those other influences are to your decision making process.

In nearly every decision of importance I make, I seek the input of others.  Some decisions, you can use historically obtained information.  In the situation where I must decide which mayonnaise to buy at the grocery,  I remember that my wife prefers Dukes, and my mother prefers Blue Plate.  So if this is being bought for my house, Dukes wins.  However, when decisions are not so simple, we must employ the techniques described by Levine to assure a proper, well rounded decision gets made. 

One important decision that I employed such methods was made many years ago when I worked at a K-12 School District as their Information Technology Coordinator.  As the head of the IT department, it was often my decision to shape the direction of technology purchases to assure that taxpayer money was spent wisely and for the betterment of the children in our district.  One decision that comes to mind where I had to make such a decision was for applying a standard for the district on which type of interactive white board we were going to use. 

In that district, teachers would frequently move rooms between school years, and would request the technology in their new room be the same as it was in their old room.  This kept the teacher from having to recreate all of their materials for different technology which is a very laborious process.  However, when considering white boards, this particular item was extremely difficult to move, it cost a substantial sum, and assets were assigned to a room not to a teacher.  Therefore, during my tenure as the head of Information Technology, I attempted to standardize which technology was installed in our classrooms to minimize the need to uproot classrooms just because a teacher or administrator decided a move was needed. 

At that moment in time, there were essentially three choices for interactive whiteboard on the market.  SMART Technology's SmartBoard was the name synonymous with the interactive whiteboard market and our school district had 3 already installed in some of our older high tech classrooms.  However, there were two other options which were much more cost effective and would have meant I could have outfitted the entire school faster had we used one of those other choices.  The need to decide and mandate a standard came when I found out our Upper Elementary library had to be moved for a school year while renovations were being performed on their current library's building.  Upon walking in to determine what IT would need to do, I saw one of the other brand's white boards sitting stagnant on the wall.  She had money at the end of the previous year and decided she wanted one and somehow it got purchased and installed without my knowledge.  This now meant I had two different products in my walls and would now cause me to require consideration of multiple technologies if implementing any district or school wide initiatives.  Upon consulting with the librarian, I discovered this company had approached her directly at a time she had extra money and that was how she decided what to purchase.  As we have learned from Hoch and Kunreuther (2001) sometimes our decisions get made for us as we are poor decision makers when it comes to retail buying. 

Therefore, I decided to have what we called a "shootout".  Each vendor who supplied an interactive white board who was on the State of Mississippi's Express Products List was invited to showcase their product to a panel of stakeholders who would then give me their informed recommendation.  For this project, each school in our district was to send a teacher, a parent, and an administrator to participate in this committee.  We also invited district wide representatives for our office of Special Needs, and the Federal Programs director.  The teachers from each school were asked to consider each of the products presented from their perspective as an instructor.  The parents were allowed to bring their child(ren) if they so chose, but were asked to consider these products on their ease of use from a child's perspective.  The administrators were asked to consider their employee body as a whole to assure this product would be able to be widely implemented and maintained in their school environments.  The request for each person to consider a frame (Hoch and Kunreuther, 2001) assured that each set of representatives were truly representing their school and all of its inhabitants.

As each vendor had their opportunity to present their products, the committee was asked to listen to the story being told by each of the representatives who were making their pitch.  The committee members were given a rubric of consideration which did not include price and the vendors were instructed not to discuss price in their presentation as I did not want that to skew anyone's preformed opinions on any one product.  Each participant in this exercise was encouraged to take notes on the products as we had one vendor scheduled per day and this exercise would be carried out over the course of a week. 

Once each vendor had their moment of glory, it was time for deliberation.  Our committee assembled once more and this was my opportunity to listen.  By listening to each different group's individual inputs, I had the opportunity to not only see these presentations from the frame which I regularly found myself in, but I also had 12 other's.  This unique opportunity would give me the most input I had ever experienced and could provide valuable insight (Levine, 2009).  Normally, in retail situations, we allow the decision to be made for us and will often not choose the cheapest or the most expensive option.  However, in this situation with price not having been discussed, I found those two boards were the front-runners as the mid-line board had many undesirable features.  Other districts around the State had chosen that mid-range board and were shocked (but in agreement) that their board was the first eliminated.  By listening to each group, I was able to bring their expertise into my decision-making process where otherwise, I would have likely made the decision other districts made and have had to deal with the consequences of a bad decision. 

Overall, we decided on the more expensive of the choices at the time.  As State purchasing law contends we must purchase the best and lowest cost item, we had made the justification for the best option for our district.  Overall, our teachers were happy with the implementation and the boards were used for nearly 8 years before being retired.  Having a standard purchase allowed for master trainers to be established and peer based learning to assure our teachers were utilizing this technology in their daily instruction.  By listening to each group, all had come to the same decision but each for their own reasons. 

In the future, I believe I will continue to use these methods for agreement and resolution.  This has its benefit not only in work teams, but in other areas as well.  For decisions at home, it is important to get input from each member of the family as these decisions have an effect on the overall happiness of our family unit.  A third way I intend on using this in my future is for coming to agreement with myself.  I enjoyed Levine's writing (2001) on using this method for setting personal goals and commitments to yourself as I often tend to neglect my own thoughts.  The concept of visualizing and getting specific about my goals and crafting an agreement with myself is a new concept that I look forward to implementing in my life to make me a more fulfilled being.

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

As an instructor, it is my desire that every one of my students obtain the ability to actively listen to the lectures that I give.  I notice that each student who do use active listening techniques are typically the students who master that topic easier and faster than those who do not.  In peaceful situations, the art of active listening is easy to perform and will gain rewards for the user of this technique.  So why then is it so hard to perform active listening when in a conflict situation?

I feel when we are in conflict situations, we have a tendency to shut down and quit listening as we are focused on strategy and how to win an argument.  In this exercise we have been asked to recall the last time we really listened to someone else which is part of the Cycle of Resolution described by Stewart Levine in his book Getting to Resolution (2009). 

As a parent, I find myself struggling with my two children and their constant battles to flex their dominance as alpha child in our household.  I love they have each other to sharpen their teeth upon, but if left unchecked it will drive them apart rather than form a common team.  In my life, I found my parents used a rather bizarre method of conflict resolution which I have been deploying on my children as I saw its value in my life and relationship with my sister.  This method involves that whenever my sister and I were in conflict, we would have to both sit in the room with Mom or Dad in between us, and each had to tell our story.  As a child, I thought this was for our mediator to listen to the story, but now I realize this is the opportunity for each party to gain a better understanding of the situation. 

For these negotiations, each child has an opportunity to discuss without interference from the other side.  The other party must listen, without interrupting and show they are utilizing active listening techniques.  After each child has their turn, the mediator typically only had to have each shake hands and carry on as the conflict usually was self resolving.  When we fail to listen to the other side of the story, we have a greater tendency to misunderstand their reasoning, which is often the source of the conflict in the first place.

My last conflict which I really listened was between my wife and myself.  In this moment, we had both had a bad day and were taking our frustrations on the closest person to us.  Early in our relationship, we created porch time as it was the solution to one of the most epic battles of modern human history (or maybe just our marriage).  Porch time begins by one or both of us realizing that a resolution needs to be found.  We grab a bottle of wine and two glasses and head to the porch where it is typically night and there are no distractions to draw our attention away from the situation.  In this event, we pour a glass of wine and sit in silence for a few minutes to allow the aggression to leave and wine to be sipped. When one of us has achieved calm, we begin to talk.  Whomever begins talking has the floor while the other must do nothing but sip wine and listen.  When the first is finished, the other may rebut with his own account of the situation (my wife is usually calm before I am).  Our resolution is to find agreement before we leave the porch.

I find that we are more willing to employ active listening techniques when the relationship between the disagreeing parties is worthy of the effort.  This is the case for my wife and I as well as with most of my family, but what about with those whom I do not have more than minimal investment in?  I listened to a TED talk about conflict resolution in preparation for this article (Ury, 2010).  In this talk, Mr. Ury asked us to remember that our interest in a conflict means we have the ability to act as a third party and find a resolution by reminding the two what is really at stake.  This is part of what my parents did each time my sister and I had our differences in life. 


References:
Levine, S (2009) Getting to Resolution: Turning Conflict into Collaboration.  Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco CA.

Ury, William (2010)  TedxMidwest, The walk from no to yes.  Retrieved from: https://www.ted.com/talks/william_ury/up-next?language=en.

A632.5.4.RB - How Protected are Your Protected Values?

When I think about what my protected values are, I can not help but think about the movie Miss Congeniality (Petrie, 2000).  When Stan Fields asked "What is the most important thing society needs?"  Each contestant was expected to say "World Peace".  This concept in my mind is always laughable due to the unlikely circumstance of its occurrence much less undesirability for those who believe in the Bible's Book of Revelation where world peace ultimately means end times are upon us.  As the seekers of protecting our values, we often neglect to see the true price with which that comes and are typically willing to make concessions despite the belief that our values are to be protected at all costs.

The first of my protected values are that I will protect and preserve my natural resources.  My supporting belief for this value is that if we fail to protect and preserve our natural resources, that humanity will struggle to survive in the future.  I realize that a complete adherence of not using any natural resources without restoring the same quantity is impossible while still maintaining my current lifestyle.  However, I do hold to the notion that we should reduce or eliminate the complete waste of materials and use sustainable resources whenever possible.  By being as conservative as possible, we can extend the complete depletion of this planets resources for as long as possible.  Am I willing to walk to work barefoot so I do not use petroleum products for my daily commute?  No.  Am I willing to purchase a vehicle which would have the best fuel consumption for my situation and drive it as long as it is ecologically sensible to continue to do so?  Yes.  I realize that each vehicle made uses vast amounts of resources in its manufacture that will likely never be overcome by a simple fuel savings from one model to the next, therefore I drive a relatively old car, which at the time of purchase had the best fuel economy on the market.  Did I assure the manufacturer followed sound sourcing techniques for the products which went into the make of my car?  No, but I have not heard significant public outcry against this company over any other.  While I hold this value near and dear to my heart, I do realize that each person and corporation has an effect on the environment we live in.  A best effort can be made, and that is what this value, to me, exists to sustain.

A second value that I consider a protected value is that we should always be considerate of others.  While this is a protected value of mine, I also expect others to be considerate of my needs too.  While many people in this world seem to consider only themselves or what is best for their company or family.  I believe if everyone was considerate of others and the well-being of others, rather than just for themselves and those immediately connected to them, the world would be a better place.  This value also comes with its flaws as most of the time, everyone is self-serving to some degree.  Therefore this value becomes more of a "How can I do the most good for society without affecting my own well being too substantially?" than an entirely altruistic effort.  I will stand and hold the door on a cold rainy day for another person despite my own coldness, but I would not give them the building because they did not have one of their own. 

Finally, my third protected value, which is perhaps the value I am least willing to sacrifice is my value for the protection of child welfare.  I believe that those who can have a duty to protect from harm those who can not.  The primary thought that enters my mind when I think about this value is the abusive situations that many children around the world find themselves in.  While I realize that I can not possibly protect every child in the world, I do firmly believe that if each adult who could protect a child would, there would not be any children without such protection.  I am supportive of efforts to prevent child abuse, child labor, and other societal groups who do not have a voice as well.  I investigate the sources of many things I buy to make a conscientious decision regarding labor, civil and worker rights.  Several years ago, I heard that FoxConn, the world's largest manufacturer, had horrible working conditions which caused a large suicide rate among their workers.  Appalled, I set out to investigate the situation.  Initially, I uncovered that the company had seen several of their workers commit suicide that past year and the number seemed extremely unreasonable until I discovered the size of their labor force and realized they employ more people than my home State of Mississippi has citizens.  The number, while still upsetting, seemed rather low in comparison to my home State's suicide death rate that same year.  While the awareness brought to light the seriousness that I value human life, it did not preclude me from purchasing any of the products that FoxConn manufactures, but rather take into consideration that I do have the ability to join prevention groups in my area to aid those in my community. 

Each of my protected values has its limits, and I have never viewed any of my protected values as sacrosanct.  While I feel strongly about my values, I also realize that each can not be fully enforced without loss of concern for another of my own values.  Each decision we make should reflect our values, and the values of our company, but the ability to protect every value all the time is impossible.  So why try?  Primarily, I feel that we should do our best as the Boy Scouts of America state in their Boy Scout Oath. 

References:

Baron, J., Leshner, S. (2000).  How Serious Are Expressions of Protected Values?  Journal of Experimental Psychology: 2000. Vol 6. No 3. 183-194. 

Hoch, S., Kuneuther, H. (2001) Wharton on Making Decisions.  John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Boy Scouts of America. (2018).  Scout Oath.  Retrieved from: https://www.scouting.org/discover/faq/question10/

Petrie, D. Director, Bullock, S. Producer (2000) Miss Congeniality.  Warner Brothers Pictures.

A632.4.4.RB Deception in Negotiations

            According to the Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation negotiators will often “resort to threats, extreme demands, and even unethical behavior”(Program on Negotiation, 2018a).  In both our personal and professional lives, each of us are bound to enter into a scenario requiring a keen ability to negotiate to best assure the outcome of that meeting is best for all parties involved, while keeping long term self-interests of utmost importance. 

            One of the common methods negotiators use to assure their own self-interest is preserved in a negotiation is by using the art of deception to their favor.  This could be as simple as overstating a skill in a job interview, to cunning as military maneuvers to catch their opponent off guard.   Harvard Law’s Program on Negotiation points out ethical issues are most obvious to third parties than to the decision makers in a negotiation (Program on Negotiation, 2018b).  Oftentimes our own internal ethical compass must be reflected upon to assist in deception in negotiation.  If we expect others to deceive us during a negotiation, it is often what causes us to be deceitful.  Therefore, the Program on Negotiation suggest we predetermine our own ethical standard to know which behaviors are unacceptable of ourselves prior to entering negotiation proceedings (Program on Negotiation, 2018b) and be ready to respond with strategic yet ethical answers. 

            Another tool to use in successful negotiation is to do your homework.  Prior to entering into any negotiation meeting, you must be prepared to have accurate responses to as many moves as possible(Program on Negotiation, 2018a).  The negotiator must perform adequate research about the topic which is being discussed. 

            A third tactic to be used in a successful negotiation is the enhancement of your own power by investigating alternatives to the currently proposed solution.  Having the ability to change the game in a negotiation to your favor.  Rarely does anyone like to hear that you have found an alternative to what they are offering you altogether.  Thinking about alternatives enhances your position by not being rendered powerless with no options but to accept the offers and demands being given.  This also gives you the ability to remain ethical in your actions.  Even if your only alternative is to abandon the project, being prepared to do so can be leveraged to your favor (Program on Negotiation, 2018b).

            Finally, another method which our vulnerability to deception can be reduced is to be direct with your counterpart (Geiger, 2017).  Asking direct rather than indirect questions, and disclosing factual information rather than deceitful information allows negotiators to clear the playing field of any rhetoric and falsehoods.  The tone that is instituted when asking direct questions is generally that of an assertive person who is not going to allow themselves to be taken advantage of.  The statement of fact eliminates any doubt of prior research being conducted.  Both traits give a negotiator the ability to gain respect and favor in a negotiation.

For reflection on these tools, I think back to my last car purchase.  My wife and I were in the market for a new Honda Pilot.  My wife had her heart set on buying this particular car after seeing a friend who had this same model and was extremely pleased with their experience.  Whenever I think about car buying, I cringe because the level of deception techniques portrayed by media gives potential buyers a distrust of those whom we are entering these negotiations with.  Because of my high level of mistrust and the desire to leave feeling as if I had won the negotiation, I did an exhaustive research of this vehicle and its prices and features.  One portion of my research I found several other cars at other dealerships within a two-hour driving radius from our home.  When we entered the dealership, I came armed with my research and I knew how much I was willing to pay for the car this dealership listed as available on their lot.  One claim I overstated in this negotiation was the fact there was a car just over 2 hours away being offered for a lower price.  I was unwilling to drive there for the car, but I stated that I would make the drive for the savings.  I had prepared myself to walk out of the negotiation if he refused to meet that price point, but the truth of the matter was, the car 2 hours away had already sold so there was no other car cheaper to go to.  If that situation had not played to my favor, I likely would have been sleeping on the couch that night as my wife wanted to drive off car in hand.  Fortunately, the negotiation played to my favor. 

A situation that I was misled in a negotiation would have to be when I built a storage building on my property.  For this project, I wanted to get a building to use as a workshop and storage space for me and my family.  During initial meetings with my potential builder, I discussed the size, and features I wanted to have in my building.  After negotiation of the price, I felt as though I was happy with the process and a deal was made on a handshake.  My deception was to the abilities of the builder.  The man seemed to be reputable and capable, however, the finished product turned out to be a little less than expected and quite a bit over the agreed upon budget.  Some of the lessons I learned in this negotiation process was to get everything in writing and follow up on references before agreeing to anything. 

References

Geiger, I. (2017). A model of negotiation issue–based tactics in business-to-business sales negotiations. Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 91-106. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.02.003

Program on Negotiation. (2018a). 10 hard-bargaining tactics & negotiation skills. Retrieved from https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/10-hardball-tactics-in-negotiation/

Program on Negotiation. (2018b). Why is sincerity important? how to avoid deception in negotiation. Retrieved from https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/why-we-succumb-to-deception-in-negotiation/

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

Schoemaker and Russo, the authors of one of our chapters for this Modules reading assignments identify a concept they call "frame blindness" and follow by discussing how we can avoid it.  Frame blindness is the idea that organizations, managers and employees all have a tendency to not see the point of views of others which are contrary to their own.  The danger of "framing traps" is if a manager fails to recognize they are not seeing the entire problem, then they can potentially fail their team by making decisions on incomplete data.

To avoid these situations, it is important that a good manager must first identify and acknowledge the frame they are working in.  As part of this measure, it is also important that the manager communicate to others their frame of reference to start the conversation of self identification among the various members of a team.  One of the best ways of identifying your frame is through a frame audit.  At the school I work, I am part of an organization called Phi Theta Kappa which is an honors society for Community College Students.  I was asked to be a part of this group two years ago by one of our College's Vice Presidents because she wanted to create a variance in the makeup of the advisor team.  At our college, we have both Academic and Career/Technical Programs of study.  The vast majority of our Academic students anticipate transfer to a 4 year university when they complete their first two years at the community college.  The Career/Technical programs typically are filled with students who anticipate going into the workforce once they finish their two year program of study.  The framing situation that existed before I was asked to be part of the advisor team was our advisors were all Academic instructors and often forgot about the majority of our student body who are in Career/Technical programs.  Phi Theta Kappa is currently in the process of re-framing their organization by being more inclusive of Career Technical students in all areas of our organization.  As a Career Technical Instructor, I represent the voice of all of our Career and Technical programs in the college.  This helps to give the group a more inclusive view of each program so we can provide for the needs of our student body.

Another of our framing traps we often get caught up in is the inability to change inadequate frames.  It is important that once we recognize the frame we are in, that we also admit if it is inadequate for the situation and make changes so it is a better situation.  Is your frame working for you and you team?  Is there something about it that needs modification, or a reason it is not a good fit at all?  When I first joined the Iota Mu Chapter of PTK as an advisor, I did not know why I was there, or what my purpose was.  At first, I attempted to adopt the frame the other advisors were working under already as it was a great fit for them.  I expected this was the way I was supposed to operate.  My first year as an advisor, I felt as though the situation I was in each week during our meetings did not feel right, but that I would get used to it.  Having been an academic student when I was an Undergraduate, I felt my intuition would take over and allow me to get along with the group.   In their article, Curseu, Schruijer, and Fodor (2016) point out that managers expect groups to successfully integrate each team members unique contributions.  In this case, I was not integrating, but trying to assimilate the groups current make up.  I failed to notice why I was asked to be part of the team, which was for my contributions as a Career Technical Instructor.  Last April, I had the opportunity to attend the International Conference of Phi Theta Kappa where I learned about the new mission and goals of the organization to include Career and Technical student bodies.  I also learned about PTK's Five Star Advisor Plan which was a training developed by PTK to give new and seasoned advisors a resource to learn and reframe ourselves.  I have since completed the Five Star Advisor training and feel that my contributions are worthy of inclusion with our group.

Finally, we must also constantly create new frames for each new situation we may find ourselves in.  Avoiding the unknown by staying in our safe and comfortable known frame leads to frame blindness and makes your decisions obtuse and inadequate for the ever changing world.  I know I live in the safety of my frames and often am scared to venture out.  I have long believed it was impossible to make a bad life choice, we just have to figure out why we were sent down a particular path after a decision is made.  With this course, I realize that may not be exactly correct, but I also have questioned my decision to become a teacher as a major mistake in my career.  However, if I had not made that decision I would not be in this course learning about the need to change your frame of view.  Prior to becoming a teacher, I was the Technology Manager at two K-12 institutions and a small college.  The teacher I wasn't was my customer in all of those situations, and I often failed to see the frames which they were in as they were not joining me in my Technology is Better frame of view.  Now that I am framed as a teacher, I see the conundrum I created by being limited in my view of everyone else's situation.





References:

Curseu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L., & Fodor, O. C. (2016). Decision rules, escalation of commitment and sensitivity to framing in group decision-making. Management Decision, 54(7), 1649-1668. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1809013681?accountid=27203

Hoch, S. & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Martinovski, B. (2014). Interactive alignment or complex reasoning: Reciprocal adaptation and framing in group decision and negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(3), 497-514. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s10726-013-9363-5

Slotte, S., & Hämäläinen, R.,P. (2015). Decision structuring dialogue. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 3(1-2), 141-159. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s40070-014-0028-7