A632.9.3.RB_CliftonEmily

Emotions play a huge role in decision making on any level and in every way. As humans we make every decision based on how we “feel” about it. We chose to enter into marriage because of an emotion: love or we get divorced as a result of the evaporation of the same emotion. We select a job or a candidate based on how we feel about them and whether those feelings are positive or negative there is a huge impact on performance and attitude.

For the times I have made decisions and was confident about them my performance has been above average, my attitude toward the decision is positive, and I find fewer errors are made. Example, my decision to take this job was one I made with confidence, and two years later it still shows. I perform among the top percentile of my peers; have consistently above average numbers in enrollment, matriculation, and retention rates. I am passionate about education and this also drives the relationships I have with my students. They read the confidence in me and trust me to make decisions for their futures and they know that I have their best interest in mind and will always steer them in the right direction.

In the instances when my decision has been made with a lack of confidence the opposite of above is usually true. I am anxious and tentative with my actions and speech. I am more likely to make mistakes if I am not confident or passionate about what I have decided. If presented with an important personal decision I make a choice based on what I think the other person wants or needs rather that what is best for me, my lack of confidence shows and typically the other person can sense my hesitation and does not trust me fully.  This is something I am experiencing right now in my home and my mate can read it in me. He may not know exactly what is up, but he knows something is off.

This may sound silly, but as a woman I can relate. When you purchase a pair of shoes or an outfit you must take into consideration how you feel about wearing it. If you feel good about yourself then when you wear it everyone will see you exuding confidence. If you are uncomfortable it will show no matter how hard you try to hide it. 

A632.8.3RB_CliftonEmily

The Cynefin Framework model was introduced to assist management (or anyone really) with delegating and determining which decision to make when presented with a conflict or choice. It is made up of four quadrants:

1.       Simple (known): consisting of repeating patterns and consistent events.

2.       Complicated (knowable): consisting of patterns that are known, but not always apparent.

3.       Complex: there are no correct or concrete correct responses, can be unpredictable

4.       Chaotic: very turbulent and volatile, no clear patterns or relationships

I believe these are nice little boxes that we can dump problems and decisions into to help us determine which ones to tackle fist. I honestly feel that this is a trumped up version of the Eisenhower Matrix which categorizes tasks (and decisions) in four quadrants:

     

1.       Not important, not urgent (simple)

2.       Urgent, but not important (complicated)

3.       Important, but not urgent (complex)

4.       Urgent and Important (chaotic)

If you compare them  you can really see the similarities:

You can see where the similarities are. If you imagine your desk, would you want it covered with assignments and papers in no such order? No, of course not. If there is no order to your daily life, nothing will get done. When you use a organizational system such as the Cynefin Framework or the Eisenhower Matrix, it rearranges all that paperwork on your desk into neat file folders ordered in importance of completion.

There are several ways the Cynefin Framework can help to facilitate improved context for decision making; obviously it helps us to identify which decisions are important, it can aid is categorizing and organizing the decisions to be made and problems to solve into more manageable portions. The Cynefin Framework can help to determine which tasks and decisions can be delegated and which we need to tackle ourselves.

References:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Snowden, D.J., and Boone, M.E. (2007). A leaders framework for decision making. Havard Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.mpiweb.org/CMS/uploadedFiles/Article%20for%20Marketing%20-%20Mary%20Boone.pdf

A632.7.4RB_CliftonEmily

Collaboration in decision making has become quite popular in the professional world here of late. Very few organizations work within their four walls, and have to work alongside many external venders. They are all interconnected partners in a coordinated operation. In this type of environment, one person’s decisions affect many others so they cannot be made in isolation. Organizational decisions require consultation and input from all those that can influence or be influenced by them. These people are the stakeholders, and I do not mean that in the sense of a business suit whose dollars have gone into their “share” of the company, although money can and usually is involved. To me the stakeholders are the ones who are really affected by the decisions made by those in the upper echelons of management. In my world I am a stakeholder of the University, the decisions made by the Chancellor and my Directors. If a decision is made that affects how I do my job, it affect my stakeholders; my students.  There are several reasons why involving employees and students (stakeholders) in decision making can be advantageous to the University (organization). Stakeholders have insight into issues; I know whether a procedure to curriculum change is going to be positive or negative. Stakeholders can secure resources to assist an organization with a decision or project; I advise my students on what to enroll in, they pay tuition, which makes money for the University. Involving stakeholders in decision making builds trust; we need to know that our opinions are valued. If our superiors listen to what we say, it builds trust and increases organizational commitment. Finally involving stakeholders in decision making increases transparency and leads to better decision making.

There are decisions made every day that require the input of stakeholders. For example, upon hiring a new Academic Advisor the interview and hiring process is not conducted simply by the management, but by a team of the would be advisors peers. The decision of who is hired directly affects the entire team, so making sure this individual jives with our team is crucial. We all asked the candidates several questions during the interview and talked about each one after the interview. On one occasion, upon completion of a set of interviews the management team was in favor of one candidate and the advising team on the panel was in favor of another candidate. We hashed out all the pros and cons for each, took the weekend to review their resumes again and came back together Monday morning to finalize. Again, it was split, however management took into consideration our wants and needs and hired the young lady that the advising team was pulling for. She was the perfect fit, has trained quickly and is producing fantastic results as an advisor. The fact the management saw value in what we wanted was very important. 

A632.6.3RB_CliftonEmily

The cost of conflict as defined by the Levine text, Getting to Resolution: Turning Conflict into Collaboration (2009) is broken down into four categories:

1.       Direct Cost: literal cost in monetary value

2.       Productivity Cost: the cost of time lost

3.       Continuity Cost: the cost of relationships

4.       Emotional Cost: the cost of emotional pain

The whole idea of the cost of conflict makes so much sense to me as I hate arguing and confrontation; however as an alpha that attracts other alphas it seems inevitable. Arguing, it seems, is the only way some individuals know how to communicate. Conflict drives their lives. For example there was only once section of this course opened when it first was offered. Once the roster began to fill I saw several names of those who thrive on drama and conflict and after a quick assessment of what the conflict costs would be I contacted my Advisor and requested to be removed from that section and placed into the second section that was finally opened. The result? I now only have class with one other individual who works for Worldwide and there is very little conflict to speak of other than the normal stressors associated with going to school while working full time. The other class? The amount of productivity, continuity, and emotional costs are astounding.

On another note, my significant other and I have been going through quite a rough patch lately and it seems that all we do is argue. I have had more than ample time to figure the conflict costs associated with the relationship. We recently went on vacation and had the most wonderful time together, we agreed that if we were going to stay together nothing could be the same when we returned home and resumed normal life. Both of us had to make some changes. So far this has been successful and upon reading Levine’s (2009) Ten Principles of New Thinking, I can see how Tom and I have adapted some of these principles in our relationship. Instead of fostering conflict we are actively trying to foster collaboration, instead of posturing we are being more open, we are disclosing feelings more effectively, and learning to resolve rather than win an argument. Even as an alpha, I neglected to be open and honest about my feelings especially if they are negative, as I was concerned with confrontation. Now I am more open and there has been little issue with it, he takes my input far better than I would have thought. I can see him actively trying and it makes me want to try as well.

While I am not a fan of conflict, it should be noted than sometimes it cannot be avoided. There are instances when standing up for yourself and your feelings is necessary as to avoid mistreatment. If those you come to with this do not understand or are unwilling to take your feelings into consideration the conflict may show you that it is best to walk away now. The cost of conflict is much greater if you stay to long.

References:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

A632.5.3RB_CliftonEmily

Wharton on Making Decisions (2001) identifies three sourses of inconsistencies when making decisions; sequential versus simultaneous, buying versus selling, and pricing versus rating. For a more detailed description of these, please see below:

·         Sequential versus simultaneous: people have conflicting desires and values and the way options are presented guides them toward one or the other choice. It would be best to see all the options simultaneously versus one at a time so that value trade off is less likely. (Silly example: Should I want to buy a pair of shoes and I am limited to one pair, I will place all the options in front of me and decide that way rather than compare them one at a time. Having a look at something all in one group can be a helpful determining factor as something may standout in the group as overtly desirable or undesirable.)

·         Buying versus selling: buying is more driven by concerns with quality or economical soundness and selling is driven more by emotions such as guilt or responsibility. It was estimated that people tend to not pay their fair share for certain goods, but demanding their share in compensation should goods disappear. (Example: Many liberal democrats, I among them, voted to reelect President Obama for a second term in office. We wanted to have our liberal wants and needs represented; however the very second our taxes increased after the election those same individuals were moaning and groaning about Obamacare. This was directed incorrectly, but it still serves to make my point.)

·         Pricing versus rating: when values are thought of in explicitly monetary terms, they are more likely to be sacrificed. They will rate an item very high, but not necessarily be willing to pay for the rating and will compromise the values originally placed on said item.

(Hoch, Kunreuther, Gunther, 2011, p. 249-251)

The Decision Book (2008) gives a plethora of tips and tricks on how to make sounder, more effective decisions. There are a few that would be applicable to debunking the inconsistencies found when making decisions.  A few I prefer are: the SWOT analysis model, the BCG Box, and the Feedback model.

·         The SWOT Model analyzes four characteristic of any decision to be made: strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats. What are the strengths of this product, and what are the weaknesses? What sort of opportunities (if applicable) would this provide me with, and are there any threats associated with it?

·         The BCG Model analyzes the investment made with a decision. The cash cows are identified which do not cost much, but have high returns. The stars are more expensive and have a high growth rate and a high hope of return. The dogs have a low share and have little value. When trying to determine the most bang for your buck, this method is beneficial

·         The Feedback Model offers four methods of rating a decision: advice, compliment, criticism, and suggestion which are better than simply is this good or bad? This model gives more dimension for growth and expansion of the decision to be rendered.

References:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley.

Krogerus, M., & Tschappeler, R. (2011). The Decision Book. ; 50 Models for Strategic Thinking.. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Incorporated.

A632.4.5.RB_CliftonEmily

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we choose to deceive”, this is something my father used to say to me when I was young. When I gave him my best precocious and puzzled look he told me that it meant that telling lies usually becomes a complicated mess of lies when you have to tell more to cover up them all up. When you reach the end you are usually caught and do not know when or where it all began. I thought my father a fantastic wordsmith; imagine my chagrin when I discovered that it was Sir Walter Scott who wrote those immortal words. Moral of the story: don’t lie…ever.  Now here I am as an adult and I lie all the time; to avoid upsetting someone (“Oh no, that cake wasn’t dry”) or to avoid conflict (“No, I was not checking out that cute bartender”). Often, when entering into negotiations we are not always truthful; there are several negotiation deceptions that occur often. Some are more acceptable than others (wait, what…lying is ok now??). Misrepresentation occurs when a person takes a position on something which is not entirely true, bluffing occurs when there is an indication or insinuation of an action with no intention of follow through, deception is the use of false statements to lead the other party to an inaccurate conclusion, and falsification is lying out and out.

There are a few guidelines you can follow to safeguard yourself from deception while in negotiations:

·         Establish trust If your negotiation partner knows that you are not going to use deception tactics, it is less likely that they will engage in them as well.

·         Ask direct questions: People are less likely to lie is asked questions directly

·         Listen carefully: Listen to what is and is not being said, what questions are being answered and which are not.

·         Pay attention to non-verbal cues: when people lie, they may give non-verbal cues such as changes in breathing, blushing, and blinking or averted eye contact.

(Hoch, Kunreuther, Gunther, 2001, p. 196-197)

When applying for a position with ERAU, the job I was interested in has a Master’s Degree listed as a requirement. I contacted the Human Resources Department to inquire whether this was firm requirement. With the information I was able to pump from one of the recruiters I applied for the job. When I reached the section where education was to be listed I entered in both my Undergraduate Degrees as well as input my MS Leadership information as well leaving the graduation date blank. I was not sure whether it would allow me to proceed with this information missing. It did however; I believe that it passed me through the DSS based on the criteria entered. I followed up with a resume and cover letter where I outlined that while I did not yet have a Masters I was about halfway through with a 4.0 CGPA and I was expected to graduate March of 2014 with distinction. I then outlined how my current experience combined with my anticipated MS would make me an ideal candidate for the position. I misrepresented myself to get my foot in the door and to hopefully make it to the pile of resumes that go across the hiring manager’s desk, but I was honest about my shortcomings in my resume while selling myself on the job.

References:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley.

A632.3.4 RB_CliftonEmily

Working to make decisions based on certain frames is certainly beneficial. Wharton on Making Decisions (2001) ascertains that frames simplify things and thus influences our thinking and decision making (p. 137). There are certain challenges associated with using frames, however. These are referred to as  “frame traps” which refers to distortion by “imposing mental boundaries on options…[and creating] yardsticks and reference points…[and] communication issues within a company”(Hoch, Kunreuther, Gunther, 2001, p. 137). One frame trap in particular refers to what is called “frame blindness” which is when you set out to solve a problem or make a decision for which you have created a mental framework with little thought and it causes you to overlook the best options or lose sight of important objectives. Several factors can contribute to frame blindness; the illusion that one has the complete picture when they do not, overconfidence and overestimation of what we know, and frame conflict. There are several ways such framing traps can be avoided; conducting a frame audit which involves “surfacing your or your organizations frame or frames, understanding the frames of others, and developing an appreciation of new emerging frames” (Hoch, Kunreuther, Gunther, 2001, p. 142). Once can also identify and change inadequate and faulty frames and eventually with this comes the mastery of reframing techniques.

If I am honest, this whole concept of frames has been made a bit over complicated in Wharton’s text. I do think there are various ways of stating this information without being made to feel like I have been reading around in circles. What I have gathered is that often poor or ineffective decisions are made based on some cognitive error. Frames are a set of ideals (cognitions) we have about a scenario and how to deal with it. As discussed in previous chapters many decisions are made based on preconceived notions and past experiences; sometimes this proves to be accurate in the current situation and sometimes not so much. “Frame traps” arise due to our own imposition of current preconceived notions on a current situation and “frame blindness” results in which case we do not realize we are doing it and become over confident in what we think we know.  To remedy these instances you would need to make note of what it is you think (or your organizations thinks) is known about current scenario, ask others involved what they think, and come together to share ideas. If upon this reflection it is found that there are errors, the examination and alteration of thoughts is required. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the moral of the story here is “don’t assume”.

In this area I am quite an expert as I often assume and we all know what that makes me; often wrong. HA! In one instance of a “frame trap”, I was overly confident in my relationship with someone and decided impulsively to pool our resources and move in together.  I did not use previous experience as a guide (my existing frames) otherwise I would have been running for the hills.  Still, my overestimation and overconfidence in my supposed knowledge of this person allowed me to assume that this time it would be different. Different person, same result. Hills…me…running.  I can exemplify a myriad of similar examples of frame traps (cognitive errors) in my personal relationship decision making epic failures.

Organizationally, I think that up until recently (the past two years) there has been an instance of frame blinds going on in the assumption that its best not to fix what is not broken. Well, it might not have been broken, but it wasn’t working at its best. We made a transition as a department from reactive advising to proactive (intrusive??) advising. We no longer wanted to operate under the same framework we always had, so after some frame auditing, identification of faulty frames, and reframing some major changes were made to the way we do business day to day. It has been very successful, however I think that the one area lacking is that the audit/reexamining of frames needs to happen more frequently that it is. Tweaks and adjustments need to be made.

Through this process I have learned not to be impulsive, overly confident, or assume things in my personal life. Taking note of what is what, my frames, and my gut feelings can help me to identify some real traps and perhaps assist me with making better decisions. I am glad I have a long life ahead of me in which to grow and learn and not be such an ass-umer. 

References:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley.