A632.7.4.RB Collaborative Decision Making

Hello readers! 

Welcome to the top of the stretch run for our class on Decision Making for Leaders. This week we’re looking at collaboration in reaching a resolution. Rarely in life can one say they have the full picture of the situation they face. Rarely in life can one say that their decision will affect only themselves. Given those two points, the opportunities for collaborating are manifold in life.

I am a practitioner of collaborative decision making. Whether I am at home or at work, I habitually solicit inputs for the parties who are either going to be affected by a decision, and/or folks or sources that have applicable knowledge about a decision. Experience has taught me that the benefits to getting those other parties involved are manifold. Experience has also taught me that I must be ready, ultimately, to make the decision.

I was recently faced with a conflict around how a product my team produces was being priced. In order to get a solution that would meet the requirements of the multiple parties that are involved in the process, collaboration was mandatory. My department, Sales, Finance, Supplier Management, the Senior Leadership Team, and our customers were all directly impacted by the conflict. Indirectly, other training departments and our schedulers would feel the impact of bad pricing via the decrease in utilization of their services.

I attended numerous meetings, explaining the situation to the affected parties. In the beginning, the attendees would realize that some other person or group needed to be involved and that would drive a re-telling of the story. The impact of the situation was solicited from each of the players. We heard each other. Some heard faster than others, though. As part of this process, the sharing of how each other’s roles, accountabilities, and authorities were limiting and empowering each of us provided valuable insights.  

As discussed in Levine’s text (2009), the telling and listening of stories is vital to reaching a resolution. So is realizing when certain parties are unable or incapable of moving forward. There were moments when one particular group kept falling back to reasons why they could not work toward a resolution instead of looking for one. It took effort and repetitive approaches by me and other members of the group, but the wayward group finally came around. I believe that there was a level of trust that had to be reached and this group, for whatever reason, needed serious convincing that we were all working for a win-win resolution.

Getting stakeholders involved in the resolution process is fundamental to success. As someone who espouses the practice of celebrating diversity, I view stakeholder involvement as a variation on getting diverse perspectives looking at a conflict or question. The varied perspectives that each stakeholder brings to the situation can act as another bright light shining a path to success and illuminating hazards.

As Levine stated, “When people participate in shaping and customizing their their working relationships, productivity leaps take place because the participants are inspired and motivated by the objectives and standards that they shaped. Mutuality is fostered, resentment is eliminated, and acceptance is assured.” (2009, p. 189) The benefits are manifold. Getting to this place is a journey that takes commitment and concentration.

In the end, we got the pricing changed for the product and the reaction from all parties, including customers, has been positive. The collective success has been a point of celebration all the way up to the Senior Leadership Team. The parties have been seen to joke around with each other, which is a new behavior. I believe it indicates a level of camaraderie and understanding that increased through the process. If I learned anything, it was the importance of listening to understand other peoples’ pain points.

In the spirit of continuous improvement, I will definitely be reviewing Mr. Levine’s book and will reference it when facing another opportunity for conflict resolution. I know that being a “resolutionary”, as Mr. Levine calls those who practice his techniques, requires doing the hard work of changing my predisposition to looking for a win in conflict situations. As discussed earlier, there are many years of learning to undo. I will be utilizing Levine’s techniques as much as I can and taking the opportunity to teach co-workers as I do. I will endeavor to listen better to those with whom I interact. While I think I do a pretty good job, I am sure I have room for improvement.

As a side note here, understand that there are going to be times where it becomes apparent the decision at hand may not be yours to make. As you go through the collaborative process, others may come forward that are in a better position to make the decision or even facilitate the resolution. At my company, there are defined dollar limits that each level of manager and executive can be responsible for spending. That makes for an easy call. In other situations, the domain of responsibility will not be as neatly defined. Usurping authority, or the perception thereof, will impart conflict that will require serious effort to quell. Learning when to let someone else make the call is a mark of leader maturity.

Furthermore, at the other end of the spectrum, do not fall into the trap of deferring a majority of the decisions you face. In a short period of time, people will simply go around you to the places you’ve been sending them to get actual decisions.

Being a leader requires commitment and a desire to do a good job for those your lead and those you serve. Developing a skill set that allows for conflict resolution that can enhance the relationships it impacts would be a differentiator for a leader. Consider that fact when you are thinking about ways to be the best leader you can be.

Until next week….

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

A632.6.3.RB_DavisCarl The High Cost of Conflict

Welcome to week six of Decision Making for Leaders at the Educated Leadership blog. This week, we are looking at conflict resolution. Our text, for your reference, is called “Getting to Resolution”, by Stewart Levine (2009). One of the tools that Mr. Levine supplied to us is called the “Ten Principles of New Thinking” (2009, p.46). The new principles are presented next to old thinking principles on a chart. I’ll recreate it here:

Old Thinking	New Thinking
1.    Scarcity	1.    Believing in abundance
2.    Wasting of resources	2.  Creating partnership
3.    Problems, issues, emotions	3.  Being creative
4.    Fostering conflict	4.    Fostering creative collaboration
5.    Righteous bravado, posturing	5.    Becoming open
6.    Short-term adversary	6.    Forming long term partnerships
7.    Logic	7.    Relying on feelings and intuition
8.    Secrecy	8.    Disclosing information and feelings
9.  Winning	9.  Learning throughout the resolution process
10. Deferring to professionals	10.  Becoming ResponseAble ©

(Levine, 2009, p.46)

As I read through the items I was drawn to thinking about a situation at work that I have been involved with for the better part of ten years. The veritable sins of “old thinking principles” have run rampant through the organization for a long, long time. In the past, I was as guilty as anyone in in helping to maintain the often ego-driven style of thinking. Secrecy, winning, righteous bravado, scarcity, wasting of resources, short-term adversarial relationships were the order of the day, every day. Those were the rules of the game, and in order to survive, one learned how to play by those rules. Information hoarding was a recognized management style, as was passive-aggressive meeting conduct. Talented people left the organization as soon as they could find a way out. On top of having a list of deliverables that were huge drivers of stress, the internal strife and competitiveness made going to work an almost dreadful affair.

As an aside, I hearken back to one fine day as a plebe at the U.S. Naval Academy. A Marine Corp Major was talking to us about learning to follow before we could learn to lead people. He made the point numerous times that one can learn loads from one’s leader, as a follower, about how to lead. He was even more adamant that we should be on the alert to note ways we would never want to lead, as well. We should make note of poor leadership and vow not to commit the same mistakes when we were leaders. That message has been in the forefront of my mind ever since.

In my first eight years at the company, I would say I had the opportunity to see how NOT to lead far more than I ever saw good examples. That fact was one of the drivers for me choosing this particular degree path. When I occasionally think of the cost in time, money, and PEOPLE that those old ways imparted on our organization I am at once shocked and saddened. The opportunities for success that were missed were manifold. Watching employees burn out trying to make up for a lack of unified direction and support was heart-wrenching. I came seriously close to giving up more than once.

As the years progressed, and in a more accelerated manner over the last two years, there has been a change in thinking trying to make its way through. Many of the new thinking principles are being cultivated and coached by a new group of senior managers. As I have moved up the organization I have attempted to bring an open, learning culture to wherever I am stationed. I have seen positive results in the way people interact and the overall performance of teams of which I have been privileged to be a part. Partnership and collaboration are huge drivers in gaining positive alignment of groups. Looking at shortfalls and errors as opportunities to learn, instead of admonish, acts as a catalyst teams to be willing to grow and expand their skill set. It really is wonderful to watch.

As an organization, have we made a complete transition to the new principles? We’re not close. We have miles to go before we sleep. There are groups in the building that have maintained using the old principles and show little indication of wanting to change. Interestingly, their age demographic falls toward the older end of the average in the organization with a stagnant roster. Younger groups, with a bit more turnover, allowing for experience in other parts of the company to flow in, tend to be more open to the new ideas.

We have a handful of new executive leaders who are attempting to lead the culture change to utilizing the new principles. Having their commitment to the new ways and a degree of “top cover” they can provide has made it easier for senior managers, like me, to implement change. It has been a welcome breath of fresh air. Will we ever make up for the cost penalties and loss of talent? It would take a century, I think. The lost trust and bitterness still lurks beneath the surface of many meetings and other interactions.

I could not, and will not sanction the use of the old principles in any group I am lucky enough to lead. Servant and transitional leadership styles, those to which I ascribe, flourish in the new principles. The world is too dynamic, information too free flowing, for the old principles to lead to success. It is only correct, however, to learn and understand the old principles, because they are still embedded in many places. As George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” (1905, p. 284)

See you next week!

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

Satayana, G (1906). Reason in Common Sense. London, England: Archibald Constable & Co., Ltd.

A632.5.5.RB - Protected Values in Decision Making

Week five in this round of the Educated Leadership blog finds us looking at protected values in our decision making process. In another assignment we had for this week, we were tasked with making a concept map about three values that we consider protected in our lives. I chose to map the banning of shark finning, protection of our air quality, and the phasing out of cars powered by an internal combustion engine. One of the caveats I proposed was that there are very few absolutes in today’s world. Therefore, it is very important to examine multiple facets of one’s values in order to weigh the real cost of holding them as protected. That flies in the face of one of the defining characteristics of a protected value, which is that they be considered independent of consequences. (Hoch, et al., 2001, p.252) I struggle to look at situations in a vacuum. Therefore, as I have considered the values I mapped, that do not appear to fit the definition completely.

Overall, the level of protection I associate with banning the finning of sharks is fairly high. I have no intention of ever supporting the practice by eating the soup made from shark fins. I will contribute to charities that work to educate consumers of the shark fin products about the issues surrounding the product and its collection process. However, my mea culpa is this: I have traveled to China and will continue to do so, even though that country is a huge user of shark fins. My level of protected status stops where I have to consider being unable to travel where my company needs me to do business.

In regard to the phasing out of cars with internal combustion engines, I consider that value fairly protected. I have a car that can be operated solely on electricity, but has a gas engine as a backup. If I could have afforded a car with better range, I would have opted for electric only. However, the only car with the range I could see as usable was the Tesla ® and a six-figure price tag. I have considered the fact that in order to generate the electricity that I charge the car with each night, fossil fuels are consumed at the power station. Looking at my electric bill, however, I cannot see an appreciable increase in usage and feel the point is moot.   I would not boycott gas stations or car dealers that do not make electric cars. I will not un-friend people that have gas powered cars. I will support companies and ideas that work toward my intended desire, though.

Atmospheric cleanliness is a value I hold on par with that of the phasing out of electric cars. I will spend my money on companies and products that are aligned with my way of thinking. I would point out ways to be more eco-friendly to friends and relatives if I saw a place they could improve. Luckily, I work at a company that is leading the way when it comes to reducing emissions from its products and manufacturing processes.

My most close-held protected values surround the safety of my family and myself. In this area, decisions are a bit more black and white. However, heavy decisions, like those surrounding the use of deadly force have caused me to dwell upon the ramifications of such a predicament. My primary mitigation plan is to not get into a situation requiring such a decision. Yet, one never knows when some odd twist of fate may put them in a place requiring a life and death decision. Military and law enforcement personnel are far more trained to make a decision of that magnitude, and even they struggle, at times. Again, there are repercussions to those protected value decisions and the conflict that can occur when defending them.

As I mentioned in the concept map assignment, the older I get, the fewer iron-clad protected values I seem to have.

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & with Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

Hello and welcome to week three of our class on decision making for leaders! This week, we will look at how each parties perspective, or frame, have an impact on interactions and relationships.

Our course book (Hoch, et al., 2001) had some good exercises for examining one’s frames and ways to look for other points of view that will come into play. The first frame that I have struggled with, for many years now, is the sports frame surrounding labor negotiations. Defining the issue further, I struggle with the idea that there has to be a winner and a loser when faced when management and labor meet at the negotiation table. This issue seems grounded in frame blindness by both sides. Levine (2009) spends quite a bit of time in his book looking at ways to get past the adversarial mindsets . I found his book refreshing.

I have been a union member at two different companies. The adversarial atmosphere that pervaded both places was very similar. The first place I was a union member, the animosity was low-key for most until it was near contract renewal time. At that point, the vilification of management by the workforce, and the perceived lack of appreciation of labor by management would increase dramatically.  I tried to read all I could (this was prior to the internet being widely available), but unbiased information was hard to come by. Most information came via word of mouth and was third or fourth hand, at best. Looking back, I wish I could have had more training in frame traps. I know that are multiple sides to interactions as complex as labor relations and knowledge is powerful. The victim mentality that set in on the group only heightened the stress. In the end, the contracts passed and life went on. I always wondered if the stress was necessary, or could have been decreased by both sides taking different stances.

When I changed jobs I went from a union with 8,000 members to one with 50. The victim mentality was almost a thing of folklore with the group. Every move that management made was perceived as a threat to the existence of the group. Admittedly, the company seemed to go out of its way to implicitly and explicitly devalue to work of my new group. Nothing drives one to change frames like moving into management at the place one was previously working as a standard employee. After moving through the pendulum-like shift in perspective that a change like that induces, I realized that possessed a unique knowledge base of truly seeing and living the issues on both sides of the relationship. I believe it has helped me both understand and moderate my positions on different work topics. A side effect I am still dealing with is that I struggle tolerating people who outright refuse to consider other frames. It’s a learning process for me.

From my exposure to diversity and inclusion (D&I) training I know that one must question their own reference points regularly. It is quite possible that a check will uncover that the perspective being used is acceptable; however, it may identify a gap that needs to be addressed. One tool I have from D&I to use when things are suddenly just not going well is to ask, “Is something cultural going on here?”  That helps me examine my perspective and to reach out to find the other party’s frame, as well. The technique thereby mitigates what Hoch calls “symptoms of a frame misfit” (2001, p. 147), too.

One question posed in the text that I think is vital is, “Is your frame adaptable to change?” (2001, p. 147) We have to be willing to change our perspective as the situation and the world changes around us.  That does not mean sacrificing our principles. It does mean making adjustments as our information about our situation and future is updated. As I travel and do business with other cultures, I have definitely had to make adjustments to my frames to take the customer into account. If they do not succeed, I do not succeed. It is as simple as that.

The exercise in examining frames that Hoch presents in chapter 8 (2001) was valuable in that it provides tools that are useable at work and home. Having been involved with complex decision making processes through my management career, the text was also a good reminder of best practices for improving decision quality. As with so many issues surrounding human interaction and leadership, stopping to consider the perceptions, frames, and outcomes from more than just one side mitigates conflict and should be a mandatory action by leaders.

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & with Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

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

A632.4.5.RB - Deceptions in Negotiations

Hello readers and welcome to week four of our class on decision making for leaders! This week, we’ll look at deception in negotiations and how to identify when it is occurring.

Hoch, et al (2001) discusses four groups of cues that can be indicators that there may be an attempt to deceive being used. The cues, or “tells” as poker players would say, are separated into vocabulary, verbal, vocal, and visual categories. There are three categories relating to aural stimuli, however, it should be noted that the longest list is under visual cues. That is not surprising, as John Medina (2008) reminds us, “We learn and remember best through pictures, not through written or spoken words.” (2008, p. 240)

I would also like to make a plug for preparation. There is an old adage of “the five P’s”. The saying goes, “Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance.” Having done ones homework prior to beginning negotiations will go a long way toward protecting against deceptive practices. Having learned lessons form not being prepared, I can attest to the validity of “the five Ps”.

Now, let’s get back to interacting with another human during negotiations. Because of our biological reliance upon visual stimuli, negotiating via electronic media automatically puts both sides at a disadvantage. If a side were to willfully intend to deceive the other, this fact could actually be turned into an advantage. Just be aware of that fact. More diligence in fact checking and direct questions needs to be applied if you can’t see with whom you are dealing.

There are some caveats to the list of cues provided in Table 11.1 (Hoch, et al., 2008, p.195) of the text. “First, none of these cues is perfectly correlated with deception. Second, despite the abundance of available cues, most people are not good at detecting lies, and third, most people are overconfident in their ability to detect deception.” (2008, p.194) People like Bernie Madoff and P.T. Barnum excelled in exploiting these caveats.

If we focus on evaluating information for deception during the negotiation process, the four main processes are shifting the frame, asking direct questions, listen carefully, and paying attention to nonverbal cues. (2008, p. 196-197)

Simply in the way questions or statements are posed, a point of view, or frame, is created around the topic. Is something a short-coming or a trade-off? Is a product that is $999.99 really more affordable that one that is $1000.00? There are tools that can be applied to statements to change the frame and allow for new perspectives to be viewed for clarity. Past lessons in our program have addressed this topic. The upshot is that frames, and presenting information in a particular light, are powerful tools in negotiation and are open to manipulation and, therefore, deceptive practices.

Listening, while not the primary way humans absorb information, still must be done with intention. Is the speaker qualified to make the statements they are making? As deception most often occurs through acts of omission, rather than commission, what is not said may be more important than what is said.

That leads us to asking direct questions of the other party. Specificity is important, but one must be careful to gather info in both the broad and narrow categories. One will miss much if using a microscope to view a landscape. Conversely, using a telescope to look for bacteria will produce less than optimum results. Proper preparation is a big key here. Data mining and ensuring the plan of action and desired results are extremely well defined provides a strong base from which to operate.

Observing and noting nonverbal cues, as we noted earlier, may provide the best indication of deception. These cues absolutely must be combined with other information to confirm any suspicions. Depending on the gravity of the negotiations, the pressure of the situation may cause people to demonstrate signs that could be construed as indicators of deception (sweating, stammering, nervous tics, etc.). Take note, but corroborate the cue with information before calling someone out.

An example of a negotiation where I feel I was misled would be the first home purchase I ever made. The situation is intimidating, to begin with, and complex. I was relying on the realtor and my then spouse to operate in my best interest as I was out of town over 20 days a month. The house was nice, but had numerous small defects. Taken separately, the items were not grandiose. However, as repair cost mounted, I realized that the parties I had relied upon did not have the same goals as I would have represented in the negotiation. The realtor wanted to get a sale and my wife just wanted to get out of apartment living as soon as possible. I learned that due diligence falls to me, especially when I’m signing the loan papers.

Looking back on a time where I may have overstated a position, I am reminded of the follies of youth. Overstating my abilities to teachers, coaches, friends…I am guilty. Not performing to the standards I had proposed I could led to embarrassment and damaged relationships. All the lessons learned have helped me to understand how important one’s reputation is to one’s dealings with others. Repairing the damage takes volumes of effort more than merely doing what one says one will do.

That leads to defining how far I would go in utilizing some form of deception in a negotiation. There is always a part of negotiation that falls under gamesmanship. I am reminded of a quote by Admiral Horatio Nelson of Trafalgar fame, “Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon.” I am bound by, and appreciate, ethical practices and also my fiduciary duties to my company. As Levine’s (2009) book on conflict resolution tells us, we must look for opportunities to have all parties come away having been heard and with a sense of resolution. Weighing all of these facets of a negotiation is what makes the complexities an even greater responsibility of leaders and negotiators. If it was easy, everyone could do it. History shows that negotiations of  seemingly little consequence can have large impacts and must be treated seriously.

Preparation, reputation, knowledge, trust, and a bit of cynicism are all a part of playing the negotiator role. Good luck in the situations you may face!

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & with Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Medina, J. (2008). Brain Rules (T. Cutchlow Ed.). Seattle, WA: Pear Press.