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.

A632.2.3.RB_Davis Carl  - Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

Hello readers! This week we were tasked with watching Ms. Sheena Iyengar’s TED talk about making the action of choosing easier. (TED, 2011) As an interesting aside, Ms. Iyengar’s job description on the TED website is Psycho-economist. If you take the time to listen to her or read some of her work, I think you’ll see the irony.

Ms. Iyengar’s lecture begins with a description of a supermarket in California that was renowned for its extensive variety of products and extremely wide selection of those products. One example cited was that there were 348 different kinds of jam on the shelves. (2011) Sheena was curious to know how people reacted to that number of choices and she got the manager to allow her to set up an experiment.

Tastings were conducted with six jams available for tasting and then when there were 24 available. The number of tasters was tracked and then the number of those who then purchased a jar of jam were tracked. More people tried the jams when there were 24 open for a taste. However, more people bought jam after tasting from the table with six offerings. Less offerings, more purchases is a theme carried on in a study Sheena also did regarding funds in which to invest 401(k) monies. Plans with more choices had fewer participants. (2011)

After looking at these examples and others, Ms. Iyengar concluded that there were four ways to help people facing choices with an extreme number of offerings. Their names are Cut, Cement, Categorization, and Condition for Complexity.

To perform Cut, as the name implies, one should reduce the number of choices facing the chooser. Ms. Iyengar mentions Proctor & Gamble reducing the number of varieties of a dandruff shampoo from 26 to 15 and seeing a sales increase of 10%, as well as a cat litter company reducing the number its offerings and seeing a jump in profits of 87%! (2011)  It appears that while we like choice, we really like some choice, not unlimited choice.

When applying the Cement technique, it is necessary to paint a picture for the chooser so they may see the long term effects of making the choice you would like them to make. Sheena notes a company that saw a dramatic increase in retirement fund participation, and an increase in monies deposited monthly, after adding a cementing paragraph to their website page where elections where executed. By reminding the participants that adding just a little more to their contribution now would allow them to live more than “just comfortably” in retirement they filled in what may have been a gap and made a strong connection.

Categorizing has a similarity to Cut. Both reduce the number of choices available to the chooser. However, in categorizing, all of the options remain available. The choices are grouped into smaller categories which are more easily reviewed and digested, as it were. The illustration of a grocery store magazine rack and the hundreds of magazine titles vying for attention was presented.  Amazingly, 600 magazines divided into ten categories is easier to choose from than 400 divided into 20 categories. (2011)

The last technique, Condition for Complexity, resembles the use of a building block approach to complex choice situations. A car manufacturer’s website, with a “build your own car” capability, was the illustration cited by Ms. Iyengar. (2011) Each different area of the car had a varying number of choices from four to 56. The total number of areas to make decisions about numbered 60. By checking at what point web visitors began simply hitting the default choice presented as they moved through the 60 choices, the point where the chooser had basically quit choosing was noted. If the areas were presented in a random manner, such as an area with four choices was followed by one with 40 and then one with 15, the chooser opted for the default much sooner than if the number of choices steadily increased from small to large. The chooser was able to handle small increases in number better that randomly, it appears. (2011)

As the leader of a team, I have found great success with the Cement technique. Helping people see the possible outcomes for choices is a powerful tool. Additionally, they derive the capability to start to see the end-states of decisions they face and own the choice even more. I would add that I utilize the Categorize technique and then apply the Cement technique. Anything that helps me and my team get a better grasp on the data or choices.

In my personal life, I have employed the Condition for Complexity technique in dealing with situations like home or car purchases or other complex choices with long-term implications. I like Cut and Categorize for daily decisions. They allow for getting decisions done quickly. In reality, I practice Cement so much that it seems like second nature. I just realized that.

I think a large part of making a good decision is having the situational awareness to know what tool to apply and what the probable implications of the decision. Knowledge is power, especially when making a choice. Applying the above tools will only help in that task, as well.

TED (Producer). (2011, January 18, 2016). Sheena Iyengar: How to make choosing easier. [Lecture] Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

A632.1.4.RB - Multistage Decision-making

Good decisions require a solid foundation.

Hello followers! Welcome back to the Educated Leadership blog for another nine weeks of growth and learning. We will be focusing on improving our decision making skills during this term.

As part of our reading, we are looking at the ways some researchers utilize formulas to improve their chances of making a successful decision. As noted early in chapter three of our text, “As decision makers we are prone to be overconfident in our occasional successes and overgeneralize the degree to which good intuitive solutions to some dynamic problems also offer good solutions to other problems.” Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther (2001, p. 39)

To counteract that overconfidence, defining measures and converting them into formulas can be employed as a way to quantify results. Assumptions must be made and documented so all involved understand the basis for the math.

Richard Bellman of RAND Laboratories is credited with proposing this tool for improving decision making and calling it dynamic programming. (2001) The learning point here is that dynamic programming is a tool, not a solution, to make better decisions.

Given that background, I know that I utilize some tools to attempt to maximize the chances that my decisions will result in positive consequences. Depending on the complexity, familiarity, and perceived level of seriousness, the amount of research I do will increase or decrease.

There are times when I utilize what could be considered a formulaic resolution process. As I ponder my managerial and personal decisions of the last few weeks, the times formulas come into play seem to be in situations regarding decisions involving numerical requirements. Head count projections which lead to hiring and lay-off decisions as well as financial issues at both home and work are the easiest examples.

Taking that a step further, I know I am methodical in making decisions that impact perceptions or feelings of those around me.  I tend to play “what if” scenarios and try to predict the ways people will react to a particular decision. The data I use is often that which I have collected over time, but some comes via reading and classes I have taken regarding human interaction.

All of that is compiled into something resembling intuition and I make the best decision I can with the information I have.

The time allowed to make a decision is such an important factor. Emergent situations require that we make decisions sometimes solely based upon experience and intuition. Many times, the best we can hope for in those situations is that our decision buys us some time to gather a quantity of unambiguous data that we can then alleviate the situation further or, hopefully, completely. It has been my experience that true emergent situations occur rarely. Taking a moment to pause and reflect has been a hard learned but useful tool.

Part of my personal maturation in decision making has been my level of comfort with not rushing to a decision. When I mentor new managers at my company I make a point of talking with them about this subject. The times I have “jumped the gun” and actually created more work for myself or others stand as reminders for me. It is good reinforcement for me when I now see others reaping the ill-benefits of making a decision without a more developed picture. Talking over situations like this with other managers allows us to share perspectives and build knowledge to use later.

I have been lucky to get the opportunity to experience a couple of decision making games that I would recommend. Both do a great job of illustrating the ways that attempting to apply formulas to predict outcomes is only as good as the information entered.

One is a game used in teaching Systems Thinking skills and it is called “The Beer Game.” Senge (1990) The necessity of good information and clear communication are blatantly demonstrated as one attempts to keep cases of beer ordered and moving on to retail stores. If you ever get the chance, play.

The second game is called “Gold of the Desert Kings”. (Eagle'sFlight) Again, one is provided with partial pieces of information and the tendency for the human mind to fill in gaps with data, whether it is correct or not, is deftly demonstrated. I highly recommend the experience.

I am privileged to have had the chance to receive the training I have experienced. However, without exercise and application, the skills atrophy. It must also be said, that even with all the experience and learning I have done, there are situations each week that I face that provide stress and the need to exercise patience and decisiveness. Interaction with people is always dynamic, be they friend or foe.

Since reading this week’s assignment, I have spent time considering my decision style. My environment and responsibility level require that I exercise diligence and some type of predictive skills when making decisions. Consideration of how my decisions will impact coworkers, bottom lines, customers, and the company are just part of what I have to do. To assist in that, company processes attempt to add a level of repeat-ability to everyday situations. With those tools, it is easier to handle the “one-offs” that pop-up from time to time.

Optimal dynamic decision making analysis is an excellent target to reach for as a leader. It takes practice and a willingness to be open to information paths from wherever one can get the best, not the most, information. Refining the tools used and the databases we hold as knowledge is an ever ongoing process for me.

A word of caution: be aware of the pitfall known as “paralysis by analysis.” It is possible to overthink a situation. It is possible to use the need for “just a little more information” to put off making a decision that may be distasteful. When your head and your “gut” or "intuition” are saying the same thing, it’s time to make the call.

Eagle'sFlight. Gold Desert Kings - Journey In Search of Results.   Retrieved from http://www.eaglesflight.com/corporate-training/team-building-conference-programs

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

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.