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.

A632.2.3 RB_CliftonEmily

In Sheena Iyengar’s presentation for Ted Talks, she indicated that while the average person makes upwards of 70 decisions in a day it is imperative to be “choosy about choosing”. When faced with too many choices, people can become overloaded and check out. Even with the most inconsequential choices, too many options can create this overload. Iyengar ascertains that there are negative consequences to having too many choices. Too many choices can delay the decision to be made altogether, it can result in poor decisions rendered, and the choice made can be less satisfying in the end. She offers four methods with which to assist with alleviation of this problem.

1.       Cut

2.       Concretize

3.       Categorize

4.       Condition for Complexity

To cut down on the choices and getting rid of extraneous options it will reduce cost, and improve the choosing process. When concretizing, the consequences of each choice must appear real…too many choices and this becomes difficult. Iyengar states that individuals are able to handle more categories even if there are less choices; this helps with identification and organization. Finally Iyengar suggests that you must condition individuals for complexity, that gradually making choices more difficult can ensure higher participation and follow through, higher levels of engagement, and less burnout at the end stage of the decision process.

Of these, I feel the two I am more readily able to identify with; cut and condition. As an individual I feel that to have too many choices creates confusion and frustration. I do not want to have to select from 350 plus kinds of jam, it’s just too much. I know when I make my grocery list that I want strawberry jam. I want to choose from maybe 6 varieties. I don’t want 20 different brands all offering different flavors on top of sugar free, low sugar, higher fiber, etc etc. I just wanted the Smucker’s Strawberry Preserves! From an organizational standpoint I believe that too many options can cause confusion and frustration as well. Working for ERAU, I think that in an attempt to keep up with other Universities we have begun offering too many degree programs, and Aeronautical University is very specialized and unique and by offering too many choices we are confusing and frustrating our students. The Graduate Programs offered are at a great number…let’s keep it this way. The Undergraduate degrees however are beginning to get out of hand.  There was just a handful when I began and one in particular (the BS in Technical Management) has morphed into this monster program with 6 different majors.  This results in many students selecting programs that are not suited for them, them being upset about the lack of transfer credit received and lot of program swapping. I say this tongue in cheek, however as I do want to get into course development and without courses to develop I would not have this goal in mind. It’s a sort of rock and hard place situation.

Conditioning for complexity strikes me both in my personal decision making process and as a member of an organization. As a student and an Academic Advisor, I do not think that our courses are not built with this graduated idea. The first week of every course is a bit overwhelming; there is simply too much information imbedded within module one. I cannot even tell you how many frantic calls I got from students in the add/drop deadline pleading with me to get them out of their courses as there was just too much to do .This inundation in week one sets the tone for the rest of the course to many students; too much scrolling down a page scares them. When I began my Graduate program I did the same thing, I nearly dropped my first course after having a look at week one. Of course now I know that this is not always the case and by weeks two and three you have hit a stride (like most MSLD courses are discussion post, reflection blog, concept map, general assignment).  It is with this experience I am able to advise my students that it does often slow down and become less overwhelming as you get your bearings and begin to chug along.

Too many choices is not always a good thing…less really is more!

References:

Iyengar, S. (n.d.). Sheena Iyengar: How to make choosing easier | Video on TED.com. TED: Ideas worth spreading. Retrieved January 21, 2013, from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose.html

A632.1.4 RB_CliftonEmily

Chapter 3 of the Wharton text gives examples of complex formulas used by researchers to solve “multistage problems”.  These formulas input the variables and probabilities to provide a solution with the most chance of success. The text calls this approach “dynamic programming” and is credited to exploiting the idea that “a decision problem may involve a large number of stages…one need not enumerate and take expectancies of all possible contingent future realizations to arrive at an optimum decision policy” (Wharton, 2001, p. 42). While the text states that the examples of dynamic programming given were simple, I must disagree. I went over and over the equations in my head and saw nothing simplistic about them. The variables and outcomes seemed as complex as life itself, and perhaps that is the way I was meant to see it, the formulas were my metaphor for life. With that said, the text does include a caveat offering advice on how “knowing when to trust our intuition” (Wharton, 2001, p. 42). Most individuals do not solve decision making problems using mathematical equations, and most resort to weighing all the options out, going over the pros and cons, and occasionally involving others in their decision making process. I have never used a mathematical equation to assist me with making a decision, other than marking out what my variables would be and how each would affect the outcome. It has made it on paper before, in a list of pros and cons, but never in a formula such as this. Perhaps it would be beneficial for me to adopt a more systematic means by which to make decisions, something more calculated and finite. In educational and professional arenas I feel that I am adept at making effective decisions with typically good outcomes, however it is in my personal life where I falter and struggle most often. I tend to take a less rational, more emotional approach to making decisions and it can result in hurt and heartache. If I was able to extract the variables and possible outcomes from my emotions, perhaps my decisions would change and my results are more beneficial. This could impact my forward planning exponentially, if applied. The Wharton text outlines that “decision makers draw unbiased insights about the current state of the world from variable data…and previous beliefs about the world are updated in light of new data in an unbiased manner” (Wharton, 2001, p. 47-48). I concur that I am able to draw insight base in variable data and make adjustments to my beliefs based on new data presented, however I am unsure how unbiased they are. Wouldn’t the insights and adjustments being made come from my perception of the world around me? Perhaps this is where the application of dynamic decision analysis used to predict future impact comes into play.

References:

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