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.