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.
No comments:
Post a Comment