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.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Sunday, November 18, 2018
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.
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.
Sunday, November 11, 2018
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/
Sunday, November 4, 2018
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
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
A632.3.3.RB - Framing Complex Decisions
In my organization, decision-making takes a very interesting path. As with most organizations, each entity (or group) within our organization has its own level of responsibility for the decisions that get made. The general organizational structure controls which decisions are made by who, but there are those who feel they have greater autonomy than has necessarily been given to them. I believe the issue of frame blindness exists in every organization as people feel the need to have more control over the decisions being made and fail to realize decisions made are typically for the greater good rather than the limited vision each branch or sub-group may have.
This week's module not only introduced us to the concept of frame blindness, but it also gave us tools and strategies to deal with complex decision processes. The three tools our text introduced us to were building an information base, identifying constraints, and strengthening organizational capabilities (Hoch, 2001). Each of these tools must be used together for effective decision making processes.
Slotte (2014) describes the process of complex decision making in three phases similar to our text but with a slightly different spin. His three points were Dialog, Negotiation and Debate. It is important to have an open dialog for each of the stakeholders to come together and input data for a project. Negotiation allows those stakeholders to resolve issues, and deal with consequences or constraints of these negotiations. Finally, a debate gives opportunity to see the frames of others and understand who's view is the correctly gathered option for this particular decision needing to be made. I enjoyed the perspective of this researcher for spinning a slightly different light on the topic, as each phase combines the three tools from our class text to assist in the decision process.
Building a strong information base is perhaps one of the oldest rules in decision making. The more you know, the better your decisions will be. In today's world, each of us has the ability to scour the Internet to research and discover so many details which were not available to us in the past. By building a solid base of knowledge, this will aid a decision-maker in assuring their decisions are best possible for the organization.
One of the things my organization does to build strong information bases is a constant querying of our students (end users) about their experiences at and around the school. The unfortunate side of this method of query is the accuracy and relevance of data to each of the stakeholder groups. I worry with each survey that few students actually take the time to read the questions and respond appropriately. As I try to remind my students since one of the courses in my present curricula deals with data and data validity, if you respond to every question that all is wonderful then administration feels your responses validate the decisions being made. In today's world, most people hate surveys and will do anything to skip to the end quickly. For this reason, I always put a question in my surveys that a constant response would contradict their previous responses allowing me to negate that particular response from my consideration.
In this process it is important to understand what constraints affect your organization and what is holding you back from making future decisions. The old adage of what is good for the goose is good for the gander does not necessarily ring true, which is why this influx of information must be carefully scrutinized to assure the data fits the situation.
Constraints in our organization are plentiful. Each decision being made must meet an onslaught of conditions and requirements for the outcome of the project. Decisions negatively affecting the student body could cause decreases in enrollment, while decisions which make students too happy could be in violation of SACS requirements or State or Federal regulation.
Strengthening organizational capabilities is the mission of effective decision making. By diversification of your data gathering efforts, you are creating the opportunity for to strengthen and grow a group or organization. Ultimately, the decisions being made by my institution have increased student retention, as well as first time enrollments in a time when many other colleges around the nation are experiencing decreasing rates in both.
In my roll as a decision maker in my organization, I find that I must make decisions which affect my classroom and ultimately the rest of the college as well. Inside my frame of thinking as a teacher, I must make the decisions to keep all of my stakeholders happy. Each year, we review our curriculum and the outcomes of the lessons which were taught to determine if changes need to be made to the course work which is asked of my students. I also must gather data from the industry which my degree program serves in the local area. This assists me in determining which courses should be offered and if the skills being taught are currently those which we should be basing our student performance off of. For the identification of constraints, I refer to many different documents which guide our programs, first there is the State of Mississippi curriculum framework which gives guidance on which courses the State decided would be appropriate for our program. The next constraint is to assure all reporting guidelines are met for the college's SACS accreditation reviews which occur periodically. All of this in hand, I also have to worry about the strengthening of my organization. For my frame, this is the demand for my program which also influences the college's frame as well. Demand for my program is higher than I can accommodate, which is largely a result of success in job placement for my graduates, and a program which meets the rigor of the industry without causing student incapacitation.
The degree of complexity in making decisions grows as you climb your way up the organizational ladder. At the bottom of my organizational structure, the decision processes are relatively straight forward. However, as you move through department chair, deans, college vice presidents, provosts, and presidents offices, the number of inputs for each of their decisions grows exponentially. Currently, the decision makers in my organization are making effective decisions for our group, however, I wonder if they are using sound decision sciences to make those decisions or if their intuition is keenly happening upon a workable solution rather than the best possible. Perhaps one of the greatest occurrences in my current profession is the lack of people in decision making positions who do not have advanced degrees which required extensive research and decision investigation to obtain. I believe with higher levels of education, we all have the opportunity to learn better methods for data gathering, constraint recognition, and organizational growth. I wish I could say that every organization I have worked at valued these skills as much as Education does.
References:
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
This week's module not only introduced us to the concept of frame blindness, but it also gave us tools and strategies to deal with complex decision processes. The three tools our text introduced us to were building an information base, identifying constraints, and strengthening organizational capabilities (Hoch, 2001). Each of these tools must be used together for effective decision making processes.
Slotte (2014) describes the process of complex decision making in three phases similar to our text but with a slightly different spin. His three points were Dialog, Negotiation and Debate. It is important to have an open dialog for each of the stakeholders to come together and input data for a project. Negotiation allows those stakeholders to resolve issues, and deal with consequences or constraints of these negotiations. Finally, a debate gives opportunity to see the frames of others and understand who's view is the correctly gathered option for this particular decision needing to be made. I enjoyed the perspective of this researcher for spinning a slightly different light on the topic, as each phase combines the three tools from our class text to assist in the decision process.
Building a strong information base is perhaps one of the oldest rules in decision making. The more you know, the better your decisions will be. In today's world, each of us has the ability to scour the Internet to research and discover so many details which were not available to us in the past. By building a solid base of knowledge, this will aid a decision-maker in assuring their decisions are best possible for the organization.
One of the things my organization does to build strong information bases is a constant querying of our students (end users) about their experiences at and around the school. The unfortunate side of this method of query is the accuracy and relevance of data to each of the stakeholder groups. I worry with each survey that few students actually take the time to read the questions and respond appropriately. As I try to remind my students since one of the courses in my present curricula deals with data and data validity, if you respond to every question that all is wonderful then administration feels your responses validate the decisions being made. In today's world, most people hate surveys and will do anything to skip to the end quickly. For this reason, I always put a question in my surveys that a constant response would contradict their previous responses allowing me to negate that particular response from my consideration.
In this process it is important to understand what constraints affect your organization and what is holding you back from making future decisions. The old adage of what is good for the goose is good for the gander does not necessarily ring true, which is why this influx of information must be carefully scrutinized to assure the data fits the situation.
Constraints in our organization are plentiful. Each decision being made must meet an onslaught of conditions and requirements for the outcome of the project. Decisions negatively affecting the student body could cause decreases in enrollment, while decisions which make students too happy could be in violation of SACS requirements or State or Federal regulation.
Strengthening organizational capabilities is the mission of effective decision making. By diversification of your data gathering efforts, you are creating the opportunity for to strengthen and grow a group or organization. Ultimately, the decisions being made by my institution have increased student retention, as well as first time enrollments in a time when many other colleges around the nation are experiencing decreasing rates in both.
In my roll as a decision maker in my organization, I find that I must make decisions which affect my classroom and ultimately the rest of the college as well. Inside my frame of thinking as a teacher, I must make the decisions to keep all of my stakeholders happy. Each year, we review our curriculum and the outcomes of the lessons which were taught to determine if changes need to be made to the course work which is asked of my students. I also must gather data from the industry which my degree program serves in the local area. This assists me in determining which courses should be offered and if the skills being taught are currently those which we should be basing our student performance off of. For the identification of constraints, I refer to many different documents which guide our programs, first there is the State of Mississippi curriculum framework which gives guidance on which courses the State decided would be appropriate for our program. The next constraint is to assure all reporting guidelines are met for the college's SACS accreditation reviews which occur periodically. All of this in hand, I also have to worry about the strengthening of my organization. For my frame, this is the demand for my program which also influences the college's frame as well. Demand for my program is higher than I can accommodate, which is largely a result of success in job placement for my graduates, and a program which meets the rigor of the industry without causing student incapacitation.
The degree of complexity in making decisions grows as you climb your way up the organizational ladder. At the bottom of my organizational structure, the decision processes are relatively straight forward. However, as you move through department chair, deans, college vice presidents, provosts, and presidents offices, the number of inputs for each of their decisions grows exponentially. Currently, the decision makers in my organization are making effective decisions for our group, however, I wonder if they are using sound decision sciences to make those decisions or if their intuition is keenly happening upon a workable solution rather than the best possible. Perhaps one of the greatest occurrences in my current profession is the lack of people in decision making positions who do not have advanced degrees which required extensive research and decision investigation to obtain. I believe with higher levels of education, we all have the opportunity to learn better methods for data gathering, constraint recognition, and organizational growth. I wish I could say that every organization I have worked at valued these skills as much as Education does.
References:
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)