Week 9 - Role of Emotional Decision Making

There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge... observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination.

Denis Diderot

We have finally made it to our final week in 632. This week, our focus was surrounding information cascades and how they are likely to lead to problems when we “…assume your inferences are bout the decisions made by others are reality” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 272). Just as we have explored the importance of independent thinking throughout the entire MSLD program, we find with cascades, the decisions you make based upon assumptions are only as good as the information you have been provided. If we fail to consider the fact how easy it is to go with the flow, become entirely unaware of our contribution to the lack of reality presented to others, and how decisions impact the reality of those caught in the cascade. Just as our reading walked us through with a potential job candidate, someone may be unemployed by choice, or they may have not been offered a job for reasons that cannot or will not be uncovered by our own investigations. Does it make it right…No…but it certainly reinforces my philosophy of trust but verify…even when time is limited. Critical thinking has taught leaders that it is imperative for reflection and clarification of our inferences, so too should we give the same parameters regarding cascades and process the importance of independent thinking. How else can we have confidence in our process and results if we don’t…we might as well roll the dice and if it doesn’t work out, blame the people before us? I don’t see that as a winning strategy.

Additionally in our video this week, Shiv (2011) demonstrates we can see how passion is persuasive, confidence is contagious and relying upon confidence and conviction leads to the connectivity of the emotional bonding experience (Shiv, 2011) as a decision maker and with potential followers. The amount of confidence we have regarding ourselves is correlated to the course of action that you, and others, partake in (Shiv, 2011) during the decision making process. Just as our past experiences appear to subconsciously emerge during our decision making process, the emotions we recall have a direct impact in how engaged we are in the situation how we go about brining resolution as leaders.

For example, recently I was invited to participate in a meeting regarding a problem insurance company. I had little time to verify information before pulling raw data to speak to during our discussion. In times past, I had not relied upon the information provided to me because I didn’t trust the source and found my assumptions to be correct – had I not done my own research, I would have presented false information for others to make decisions upon downstream and ruined my reputation with other leaders. In this case, time was of the essence so I took the information given without verifying it and ran with it so that my presence in the meeting wasn’t a waste of valuable time. As we went around discussing the gravity of the insurance company impact, I could see the raw data pulled was not accurate; as others started to probe me about case specific information, I repeatedly stated that I had not verified the data before me, so I couldn’t sign off on anything until I had more time to review and analyze the data appropriately. Although I am known as a reliable data source, in this case I could sense that something was wrong. It was more important to not throw the other director under the bus and state that information was incorrectly provided, than simply request more time to proof the information post meeting and report. Just as cascades demonstrated the importance of the “…quality of information available affects the cascading of information” (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 265) so does this reflect in the amount of confidence we have in order to sell or prove any ideas or plans of action with others. In this case I wasn’t confident in the information provided to me, nor was the source of information to begin with and therefore not confident in the discussion or preliminary plan of action for resolution presented by the team. In the end, we found that information provided was wrong, my hunch was right, and I found an amicable way to explain the discrepancy without throwing another director under the bus, which was a win-win all the way around in my book.

In another recent situation, my husband wanted to purchase an old truck as a hobby project. He went online, found one, and started asking all of our expert mechanic friends about replacement costs, the details on the truck and what a great deal it was at the price offered. When it came time to talk with me, I listened to everything he had to say, what our friends had to say, and then eventually what my gut instinct had to say. In the pictures I noticed that only the sides of the truck were listed. I also asked when these pictures were taken and if the truck had undergone any other restorations since the pictures were posted or taken. My husband kept telling me he has spoken numerous times to the seller and nothing was mentioned and how he asked all the really important questions about the engine, rust, body condition, interior, air conditioning, etc. I kept arguing that he wasn’t accounting for many variables he asked in his questions and to please call the seller again before deciding he was purchasing the truck. He and a friend then took an entire day to drive up the coast of Florida with money in hand to purchase the vehicle against my better judgment and arguments. What he found when he got 45-minutes away from his destination was a texted picture and follow-up phone call showing how the owner had modified the back of the pickup truck, tailgate and bumper which was never previously disclosed in all other conversations. My husband was livid. He wasted an entire day driving and many nights arguing with me about this whole endeavor only to find out that I was right. I was confident that the pictures were purposely taken to not show the modifications made that were not pleasant to look at in the back of the truck – I was confident in my reasoning on this but failed to get others to see it as I was emotional in my approach.

This week has shown pertinent relationships in confidence and reasoning, but I also learned upon reflection that the emotional connectivity to our convictions comes from a place deeply rooted in the past – if our hunches turn out to be correct, if further reinforces our future thinking and levels of confidence when making the same decision over and over. However, as cascades demonstrated, the information is only as valid to our reality as we choose to explore it. If we ignore our inclination to analyze the entire picture and forgo allowing our emotions to drive us towards our actions, then we most likely will come up with a fair-minded rational decision that is based upon observable facts for determination.

Until we blog again!

Reference

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

Shiv, B. (2011, November). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making. Retrieved from Youtube.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

Week Eight - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

-       Confucius

Week 8 is finally in the books and my brain feels like grits after all the research and discussions on Cynefin Framework and how it can help leaders “avoid inappropriate reactions...” and “…lead effectively in a variety of situations” (Snowden & Boone, 2007). I am faced with numerous decisions to make every day; some simple, some complex, and some that are just downright complicated. One of the critical lessons I have learned, often the hard way, is that there is no perfect situation that leads to the perfect solution. By now being exposed to the Cynefin Framework contexts, I can see how based upon each uniquely defined situation, we tend to fall into one of four Cynefin quadrants.

As I mentioned in my research this week, leaders tend to go with what we know, and move on to the next priority. However, what the framework offers to leaders in the course of decision making process doesn’t contain a simple or straight forward resolution; instead, what it does offer is the concept of each of the opportunities characteristics, what the leaders role entails, as well as what pitfalls to be aware of and attempt to avoid (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

As each quadrant is explored, we find what course of action leaders can follow in order to bring themselves towards the considerations most relevant for each type of complex decision they encounter. The Cynefin framework is based upon four essential quadrants of integrated and calculated forms of thinking and responding to challenges based upon varying levels of complexity and the disorder that accompanies ones success in balancing “…multiple demands…” in a notably unpredictable world with unpredictable elements, emotions, and people (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

The simple quadrant is based upon facts and requires little thought or contemplation because the answer appears obvious and straight forward. Many leaders would file this quadrant under Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s), or seeing the cause and effect as predictable and repeatable. The complicated quadrant tells us to sense, analyze, and then respond to the issue. We most likely need to collaborate with others on these types of challenges, and usually this is where a variety of good practices can emerge from varying vantage points.

With the complex quadrant, there tends to be a great deal of uncertainty and there is no obvious answer. This requires leaders to probe, sense, and respond based upon increased “…levels of interaction and communication…” that will allow for collaboration (Snowden & Boone, 2007) in order to determine the best strategy to emerge over time (Schloss, 2014). Lastly, with the chaos quadrant, as researched this week, this is a highly unknown turbulent area that tends to demonstrate no clear cut cause-and-effect for evaluation (Snowden & Boone, 2007), but lends the most opportunity for creativity, innovation, and positive change. I believe this because there is no right answer, no history to extrapolate from, nor is there any time for planning or predictability, in essence, “To continue growth, the original pattern must be broken, rearranged, and then restructured” (Schloss, 2014).

I learned several key lessons with all that we uncovered related to Cynefin that will be at the top of my list for a while.

For example, with the simple quadrant, as a leader I need to be aware that I can oversimplify things when under pressure, leading me to the wrong assumptions and confusing a simple situation with a complex one. Additionally, by constantly relying upon this frame, we forget to challenge the status quo and become complacent over time.

In the complicated context, which allows for some analysis and several emerging solutions to unfold, leaders should be aware that when addressing challenges from a purely fact-based approach, it can lead us to myopia. Additionally, within this quadrant, a variety of collaborative good practices can emerge, provided you are encouraging and supporting an environment that welcomes innovative ideas from various vantage points.

With the complex quadrant, where leaders need to probe, sense and respond (Snowden & Boone, 2007), there is a constant unpredictability that lends to no blatant patterns for cause-and-effect. As leaders, we need to probe, sense, and respond based upon increased “…levels of interaction and communication…” that will allow for collaboration (Snowden & Boone, 2007) in order to determine the best strategy to emerge over time (Schloss, 2014). I have to remember to be patient – this is a quadrant where shoot, aim, fire doesn’t work and in doing so, goes against the important theme of reflection in all we do.

Lastly, in the highly turbulent chaos quadrant, leaders must remember to “…look for what works instead of seeking right answers” (Snowden & Boone, 2007). As my research demonstrated, this necessitates decisive action and decisions to take place while providing clear and direct communication to the other team members during a time of crisis. The two main issues I see here are first, if we constantly operate in an environment of chaos, we will never learn that we can change it to being either complex or complicated. When we are under constant pressure to perform and not critically think and reflect, we have no choice but throw something at the wall and see if it sticks. In this case, leaders are forced to “act, sense, respond” (Snowden & Boone, 2007) to find what works for the moment, versus what is really the right resolution should be.

There may never be a cut and dry problem or solution that we encounter day in and day out, however, by applying the Cynefin Framework to what we encounter on a daily basis, leaders will be able to provide and positively reinforce the foundation to improved contexts for decision making. Cynefin framework encourages analytical reflection, evaluation, and exploration, in order to demonstrate that linear decision making can often be misapplied over the course of our leadership endeavors. We are able to then have a deeper appreciation of the context of the problem, embrace the level of complexity necessary, while adapting to the need to change our leadership style which is most appropriate for the situation at hand (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

Until we blog again!

References

Schloss, E. P. (2014). A dynamic framework for planning under simple, complicated, and complex conditions. Business Insights.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

Week Seven - Collaborative Decision Making

A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece.

-       Ludwig Erhard

Week seven has literally flown by; with the recent loss of one of our executives, this was the first month end closings where so much more fell on my plate than in times past. I never mind learning on the fly, and I was pleasantly surprised that others were able to step up their game and help carry the weight.

This week reinforced that we have to remember that making decisions in a vacuum or silo doesn’t work in the real world; as we learn to listen to the stories of others, we find that even under the most stressful of circumstances, that as we listen, everyone can begin to identify the best solution for all stakeholders (Levine, 2009, p. 156).

Six months ago, we identified needs in our Physical Therapy service line; the person performing the functions of registration is not an expert, has never been trained, and really is more of a receptionist role that previous supervisors attempted to expand. We began researching how we can justify hiring yet another person to help support us, now that our vendor was closing its doors on the area. Because I had worked closely with other projects in the area, it was not coincidental that I was able to identify that the impact to this service line would be huge to us, and I needed support. However, many other departments deemed this as witch hunt and blame game.

The reality was that the receptionist was not the right person for the job; because she was not trained in the practice of admitting patients, she was not consistently calling for authorizations, sending over medical records in a timely fashion, and was never brought into compliance changes that affect this area. This resulted in tens of thousands of dollars a year in net revenue being written off, all unknown to anyone. As we sat in meeting, everyone pointed fingers, tensions were high, nobody wanted to accept responsibility, and trying to justify the hiring of another person when we just went through layoffs would be next to impossible. As everyone continued fighting, blaming, and supporting a unified impasse with all other departments holding the Physical Therapy to blame, we were getting nowhere fast. The meeting ended with lots of laundry aired out, but no solutions and healing took place. Furthermore, we were exactly where we started.

When I reflect on the decision to have the meeting, in my mind I had it all planned out. I thought the other department heads would be able to professionally articulate what their needs and frustrations were, not the anger fest we had. We should have made ground rules and set time limits. People should have been given an agenda and been prepared to speak about specifics surrounding the challenges…not have made it personal and attacking other team members. I should have taken into account all the stakeholders; we needed administrative support, we needed the patient perspective, the financial impact perspective, as well as the human element. Without these considerations in mind, there was no way to bridge the gap between how we needed to collaborate and move forward, in comparison to how angry and resentful everyone felt about the therapy department.

This week has shown that long-term collaborations are far more important than the money lost; I needed to re-frame my focus on the proof that things needed to change. I got caught up in the money and the proof to try to gain support, subsequently ignoring the emotional side of the entire picture from everyone’s involved perspective. I certainly learned the hard way that “First, you listen and learn what others need. Then you learn what you need” (Levine, 2009, p. 205). I also learned that prior to forming a team meeting that is supposed to be handled in the spirit of resolution and collaboration, I need to share what my intent and vision of gathering everyone together to get on the same page in order for us to all realize what each other’s desired outcomes center around what we need to do in order for us to be able to collaborate and work effectively in the future (Levine, 2009, p. 189). 

Until we blog again!

Reference

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to Resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Week Six - The High Cost of Conflict

“Sometimes, God doesn’t send you into a battle to win it; he sends you to end it.”
― Shannon L. Alder

This week was fantastic; I truly never appreciated the level of intricate detail that conflict resolution takes. While researching a recent conflict with a coworker, I found that new thinking as described by Levine is incredibly relevant to both my personal and professional life.

For example, my husband had a recent conflict surrounding Christmas presents. Over the most recent months he has insisted in purchasing items I had on a list as gifts. Without regard to my multiple requests to not buy these items, he did so anyways, subsequently leaving me at a complete loss for items to have under the tree for Christmas day.

If I had known about any of the ten principles of new thinking, such as believing in abundance and being creative, this seemingly simple disagreement could have been a much less hurtful exchange of words during the holiday season. For example, if I had been given the chance to tell my story, I would have expressed that having items to open Christmas day was incredibly important to me since the holiday we spent after losing his job several years ago. We couldn’t afford to buy a tree, much less put anything under one, and it was one of the saddest holiday times I can ever remember in my life!

Because my husband is a practical and simple man, the items such as a new softball bat, an Apple gift card to make in app purchases for his beloved games, as well as the latest release of the Star Wars trilogy DVD set, was all I had to offer for him to open Christmas day. Although after arguing, and definitely not listening the first several times we agreed to disagree on the topic, had I been exposed to any of the ten principles, we could have possibly found a more creative way to celebrate and exchange presents. For example, I could have taken all of the pre-purchased gifts and wrapped them in some enormous box for an element of surprise, only for him to find it was all of the items he already purchased. Additionally, we could have formulated a plan for going forward that neither one of us is allowed to make any new purchases at least six weeks prior to the holidays.

Additionally, in the spirit of fostering sustainable collaboration, being more open with one another, as well as relying on feelings and intuition, I think had I known more about the principles, I could have thought beyond the initial anger and emotions and perhaps spent more effort into finding new ways to surprise him Christmas morning. For example, instead of materialistic gifts, I could have made a coupon book where he could get a cooked to order breakfast, or made his favorite lemon cake for dessert for dinner, as well as reframed my attitude and actions during the arguments. Instead of fostering collaboration towards an agreement going forward, I just wanted to keep showing him how angry I was instead of talking about why him buying stuff on his own upset me so much.

Part of the beauty of the principles are that they help us move away from old thinking, such as not disclosing information and fearing that conflict always has to be viewed as a negative within a relationship. Now, after reviewing the principles, I think that there is always some small way in which we can uncover material emotions that underlie the true reason or spark of any conflict. Part of the learning we must do throughout the resolution process includes that we have to do more listening in order to learn what is important and truly valued between one another (Levine, 2009, p. 119) . We need to commit towards an attitude of resolution and stop thinking that it is a one-stop you win and I lose type of situation.

As I mentioned in my research paper this week, new thinking, along with the understanding Levine’s philosophy can help transform our current frames towards becoming more flexible and adaptable when working with others during times of conflict and striving for resolution and future collaboration would have certainly changed the outcome, the emotional toll, and the damage to the relationships we all sustained throughout the entire process. In the case with my husband, the most valuable lesson learned in hindsight is that although I think I tell him everything, I fail to tell him the root cause of what is driving my emotions. Full disclosure is always necessary in conflict resolution, and going forward I can certainly see how this would have probably helped my case, instead of escalating the conflict between us. The most painful thing you can never forget are the words that were once said in haste and anger, not love and resolution.

Until we blog again!

Reference

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to Resolution, Turning Conflict Into Collaboration. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Week Five - Protected Values

“All life demands struggle. Those who have everything given to them become lazy, selfish, and insensitive to the real values of life. The very striving and hard work that we so constantly try to avoid is the major building block in the person we are today.”

-       Pope Paul VI

I am currently in a state of shock and awe as we conclude week five.  This week pertained to a great deal of ripping off of Band-Aids once again; I never realized that it would be so challenging to identify three protected values and what level of protection would be required in order to show my support of them.

For example, the three values I could think about all surround a common theme – honesty, integrity, and kindness. I guess it stems from past experiences somewhere in my life, but I do feel that honesty is everything. The three values I mapped this week were the importance of consistency in demonstrating professional ethics, the importance of never cheating on your spouse, and lastly, that we should do no harm to animals.

I think that this exercise was incredibly challenging for me because I don’t see the world as always black or white; there will always be some instance in which what we think is true can be presented in an alternative light that would have us consider what we originally thought to be true or required.

For example, how can I possibly prove that protected values will always be protected or that they can’t change based on the particular frame in which the information is being considered? Additionally, protected views can appear one sided, which means that I am only considering my interpretation of the event, person, situation, or information, which by definition is being myopic!

In the case of demonstrating consistent personal ethics, there are times where leaders cannot disclose full information, for example if layoffs are about to take place, a change in benefits are about to happen, or the reasons for an employee are no longer with the organization. However, many of us view being ethical as being truthful and forthcoming with information. Therefore, if I am not able to be consistent with my team in communications, how can I be seen as a truthful or reliable leader?

Additionally, in the instance regarding how against animal cruelty I am, I am actually being a hypocrite; I love a good steak! Even if I were to alter this protected value to state that I am against domesticated animal cruelty, it still has a weakened argument. What about those of us that consider pet rats, snakes, opossums, and other unique or exotic creatures to be domesticated? What about even my girlfriend who has her own cows and chickens? I still love hamburgers and I am still going to eat my eggs for breakfast every day!  

Even my argument about never to cheat on your spouse doesn’t entirely hold water ; is it cheating if someone else’s religion allows for multiple partners? What if my spouse becomes incapacitated due to medical reasons but their advance directives will not allow me to withdraw medical intervention to keep them alive but they are on a vent and medically dead? Because their body hasn’t left the physical world, and the law doesn’t see me as a widow, if I enter into a relationship with someone, is that really cheating on my spouse?

As I mentioned in my research paper this week, what happens when we are confronted with decisions that also demonstrate inconsistencies in our values, may take place due to the preferences we are faced with, the framework in which we evaluate the given information, as well as the practicality and reflection upon the “…extraneous factors” we have to consider when evaluating our decision-making process (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 247). This sounds easier than I actually believe that it is. Take for example a discussion on abortion; if it was your child that was raped or your wife’s life that was at risk, and the only option to protect them was to abort the fetus/ child, would you be so quick to pass judgment and stand by and say that abortion under any and every circumstance is inherently wrong?

As we uncovered several weeks ago while watching the Dan Gilbert video regarding our flawed decision-making process, we tend to rationalize our decision making by referencing our past experiences versus being able to walk through and reflect upon current relevant factors (Gilbert, 2005).

In Gilbert’s 2005 discussion, he also points out or need to refer to the “…the past instead of the possible…” and I think that is where some of my challenges also stem from regarding protected values. For example, in the past, when people have cheated on a spouse, harmed an animal, or been less than forthcoming in my profession of accounting and finance, it has tended to have a negative association in my life. If you cheat on your spouse, I would deem you dishonest and unworthy of my friendship. If you were less than forthcoming with information, such as found during the Enron debacle, I would see you as being deceptive and untrustworthy. If I found that you would harm animals, I would most likely associate you with the scum of the Earth.

However, these statements would only be factual within certain parameters. What if your religion calls for plural marriage or your spouse was being kept alive on life support for years on end, like in the case of Terri Schiavo? What if intercourse with another man happened during rape, does that still meet the definition of cheating?

In the case of not harming animals; I like to eat meat, however, although I try my hardest to only eat free-range beef and chicken, the definition of cruel treatment is subjective. What if I said I could never personally hurt another animal, but I kill the mosquito that bites me while out in the yard? These instances point out over and over that we base our decisions on select, often negative, associations from our past experiences, or better yet, as Gilbert points out, the lesser of two evils (Gilbert 20005). That is why I suppose I feel that the one interesting point made in the video I still think about today when reflecting upon protected values is that “…our brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living” (Gilbert, 2005) which helps enforce why we need to learn to make better decisions, and the importance of the flexibility required, even when contemplating protected values and the decision making influence that these have with our process.

Overall, I think that protected values come at a price and also have a price; they come at price to us, as we may be seen as myopic when only considering the value and importance they have to us, and how they isolate us from considering important outside information that can be supplied by others. They all have a price, as each of mine is only as valid as the situation and circumstances in which I frame them. The inconsistencies that they offer essentially serve as a reminder to me of the importance to not make decisions based on only my values and perceptions.

As a leader, it is important that I consider the values and opinions of others, and not focus solely on issues and circumstances as a matter of fact that can be overly generalized and applied to each and every situation. The level of protection I am willing to offer and provide for my protected values goes back to what I need to value more in the particular situation in which I am contemplating and the framework of information under consideration. In the end, as Gilbert (2005) points out, we are human and we tend to make emotional decisions; my three discussed protected values come from a highly personal place, and therefore it would be foolish for me to contend that my decision-making process doesn’t come from an emotionally charged place. As our reading during week one demonstrated, people tend to make emotional trade-offs when confronted with difficult decisions (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 21). When attempting to make better decisions as managers, we must remove the emotional and impulsive aspect from our routines to be able to improve decision accuracy, and minimize our efforts and “…negative emotions…” that can often lead to inappropriate decisions in the end (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 29).

Until we blog again!

References

Gilbert, D. (2005, July). Why we make bad decisions. Retrieved November 17, 2015, from Ted.com: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness#t-375013

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton On Making Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Week Three - Deception in Negotiations

The best move you can make in negotiation is to think of an incentive the other person hasn't even thought of - and then meet it.

-       Eli Broad

It's hard to realize that we are nearly half-way through this semester already. I found this week incredibly interesting, specifically regarding how we can learn to reflect upon various ways deception plays a part of negotiations. Up to this point, I have not been involved with negotiations as part of my current role, but I can recall a time where I have felt deceived after negotiations and when I felt that I perhaps overstated my line in the sand.

Approximately a year ago, when accepting a new position within my current organization, our internal transfer policy states you are given a flat-rate increase of 6% in base compensation. My particular contention with that policy was based upon the fact that I was not being promoted within my current department, but to an entirely new line of business within the facility, where that policy is traditional. Based upon my past performance and current knowledge, my case warranted additional consideration for higher compensation, and I pushed for more than the standard 6%. Additionally, because of working in the finance department, I was aware of what the previously paid compensation was for my predecessor, and was attempting to use that knowledge to base my bottom line upon when negotiating for more – a measuring stick, if you will. Moreover, each position has a range, and I was certain that although it was a huge leap, I needed to be somewhere beyond what their initial offering was.

During the course of negotiations, I have asked several questions, offered several alternative perspectives to counterbalance their hesitations, all which were met with a great deal of resistance due to not wanting to "buck corporate policy", which I refused to accept as logical. I contended that over the past two years since my last promotion, I had consistently produced exemplary work, taken on additional responsibilities and projects outside of my scope, and more importantly, contributed to identifying over $50,000 in overlooked net revenue. I asked my CFO to go back to the table one last time and fight for me, and how much I believed I was worth fighting for. I truly felt that I had never presented myself as the usual and customary employee, and that was why I felt it was appropriate for me to request a higher salary than the usual and customary 6% increase. I felt I had to stand my ground; fight for it all upfront, knowing our company wasn't great about compensation. He agreed and went back to the recruiter with their final offer, and emphasized with her that the discussion was closed and would move on with starting interviews with outside candidates.

Their final offer came in lower than anticipated; I was disappointed. I shared that with the recruiter behind closed doors. We were approximately $10,000 apart and now the ball was in my court, or so I thought. When I shared my sadness with the recruiter and asked what the range actually was for the position, she stated that it was now irrelevant; she felt that I was more concerned with the monetary aspect than the opportunity presented. She then proceeded to tell me that she was no longer comfortable having me sign the paperwork accepting the new position and salary knowing how displeased I was. She went into detail how disappointed she was with my responses to their offers. She, and the entire C-Suite had done a great deal of due diligence in selecting me for the position, to the point of not even interviewing other potential candidates. All of the feedback they received from my peers about me moving into the position was met with smiles, enthusiasm, and excitement. Universally the message they received was everyone felt there wasn't another person that could hold a candle to my abilities, skills, and relationships to get the job done better than me. I began to get tears in my eyes; I felt horrible and immediately folded like a cheap card table. Hearing that kind of feedback was priceless and the money no longer mattered. I expressed that, and accepted the position feeling somewhat vindicated!

Approximately two months later, my CFO came to my office with a huge smile and congratulated me while showing me a piece of paper and basically stated that the corporate office did their annual salary reviews to ensure that everyone fell within the current ranges for their particular position. They found that I was not within the lowest part of the range and had raised my base pay several thousand dollars per year. This pleased me greatly; I actually ended up getting the exact amount I was looking for when initially accepting the position. I immediately called my husband and we were over the moon!

After getting the bump several months ago and being so pleased, I have now started to overthink the entire course of events in reference to what I discovered when reading our module assignments. I literally started to question everything today; if I wasn't even in the low end range for the opportunity, how could it be possible for them to offer less than the lowest acceptable rate…wouldn’t that be against policy? Was it that they couldn't do more, or wouldn't do more, or turned off by my negotiation tactics? Were they just trying to get me as cheap as possible, or did everything they could without needing corporate approval, knowing that corporate would perform their annual review and bump it up without having to cause a stink ahead of time?

Although a myriad of ideas began to float through my mind, in the end, I don't think they misrepresented information in order to gain any type of advantage, but I do think that there are things I can evaluate going forward for negotiating salary requirements. I tried to play hardball and it almost “back fired” me right out of a promotion. On the same token, by threatening to walk away after starting negotiations was not entirely professional on my part either. As our reading this week noted, “People are generally more comfortable telling lies of omission…” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 189), and I think that may be the case I encountered.

My C-Suite is very non-confrontational at all costs in just dealing with our normal every day operations; they typically will not go above and beyond in their actions, and similarly, they do not tend to disclose all of the relevant information when giving reasons as to why something cannot be done. Why would I assume they would respond or act differently in this case? In hindsight, it would also make sense that although I have an outstanding record in my previous position, I am now an unproven entity in the new one. Trying to justify a significant salary increase that is going against corporate policy for the facility, and at year-end to boot where all spending is highly scrutinized, and for a CFO and CEO to ask for an override to break the policy may not have been appropriate in their eyes.  

Going forward, I can employ the use of preparing specific questions prior to starting the negotiations. Instead of assuming that I would be handsomely compensated based upon my past performance, I should do adequate research with the recruiter to identify the salary range and then raise any objections immediately. If I continued to get the impression that my question was being avoided, I would have predetermined ways to ask the same question in different ways until we reached an impasse. That is probably easier than presenting an aggressive and ungrateful tone with my C-Suite.

Additionally, although I feel that I attempted to “shift the frame” (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 196) and demonstrate all of the winning reasons why I deserved more than their initial offer, I failed to reframe my own perceptions. This was potentially damaging to my negotiations, as well as my reputation with management.

Finally, I need to listen better to what is not being said; I failed to reflect on what other reasons could be contributing towards their decision-making process. By clouding my focus, I failed to ask direct questions that may, or may not have, explained underlying reasons as to their hesitations to go against company policy. As non-confrontational people, I essentially threatened to walkout and leave them without any other viable candidates to replace our outgoing director. Because my mentor had been grooming me over several months, and our team being aware of this, I thought I could leverage them into getting me what I wanted…which I thought was a higher salary.

In the end, if I had done a better job at “Monitoring decision making in the loss domain” (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 199) I would have felt ecstatic towards the fact that they did go above and beyond with their first offer, which was already outside the normal 6% allowed by corporate offices and almost $10,000 over my current salary. Instead, I viewed it as losing more and turned it into fabricated appreciation, which clearly was not the case.  

I think as far as my negotiating skills, or lack thereof, I need to prepare carefully and truly know my audience and their tolerance levels. I thought I would be willing to walk away, and that they would be willing to move up where I wanted in salary. In light of the experience, and all that I placed at risk, I know better that I don’t have the gumption to do it. Perhaps if I had planned better on my end as well; knowing the limits of what I would and would not settle for, I may have not risked my reputation as a negotiator, and as a valued and committed employee.

 My favorite take-away this week was when I realized how right our book was when I read, “There will always be missing information and differences in attitudes regarding what should or should not be revealed” (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 200), and based upon my reflection of my negotiation, it is more about how we handle in knowing, or not knowing, the information that may, or may not be revealed, and knowing what our absolute limits are!

Until we blog again!

Reference

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton On Making Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Week Two - A632.2.3.RB - Sheena Lyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”

-      Theodore Roosevelt

Week two, and I am still out of my comfort zone and loving it. This week we discussed how DSS systems can complement expertise during decision making to encourage more favorable outcomes. As our chapter demonstrated this week, “by carefully combining human experts, statistical models, and new data-mining tools, we can improve the quality of…decisions” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 101) and work towards identifying ways to achieve more favorable outcomes. 

Additionally, I can also see how a DSS can help leaders avoid areas of “…the choice overload problem” that plague leaders and everyday people (Iyengar, 2011). Watching Iyengar’s video, however, gives me hope that I can learn to become a more calm and calculated decision maker with practice.

Out of the four ways to improve my decision making, I enjoyed learning the metrics surrounding categorization and conditioning for complexity, versus cutting and concretizing. Although I can see where doing more with less, is helpful, overall this is not a strategy that would work in my current capacity within a healthcare environment. We have too many variables to simultaneously balance for mutual gratification.

Additionally, concretizing, a very valid point, works when you are dealing with things, not necessarily people/ patients, I am struggling how our decisions could be improved considering everything we do is patient centered decision making to begin with. I will admit that I had a small laugh when Sheena discussed ATM purchases. My husband uses his ATM card like crazy and has no idea how much is spent on eating out. When we go out to eat, it is habit, not need, which drives his decision process. He orders from appetizers to desserts but doesn’t scale down his spending habits at restaurants and evaluate how much food and money goes to waste. I would prefer to pay cash for our dining experiences, to prevent wasting so much food and money; the fact that we don’t see our funds going down doesn’t slow our spending and increase our savings. Concretizing would encourage us to make better decisions on how much we spend eating out if the cash was slowly disappearing out of our wallets.

Moreover, in the business office I am confronted by a multitude of decision where I have to balance patient satisfaction, net revenue impacts, legal and compliance constraints, as well as various operational impacts. In order for me to improve my decision making process, it will help me to practice categorization of these areas and quickly resolve what is in the best interest of many, versus the best interest of only one. As Iyengar mentions, categories allows us to compartmentalize the variety of options in which we have to choose from (Iyengar, 2011). However, the categories must make sense to the person choosing, not the “…choice maker…” (Iyengar, 2011). Therefore, I must represent the options impacting each department in a way that makes the most sense to gather input and then collectively arrive at the best conclusion for our organization. .

I also believe that the most impactful way I can improve my decision making is learning to do so by managing and conditioning myself, and others, for complexity. Because of the various departments in which are impacted by our business office, coaching others to become engaged members of the decision making process will improve organizational efficiencies, as well as empower my overall team.

In order to move towards this type of culture, it would be best to start off with having them become involved with smaller daily operation decisions in which will prime them towards offering different perspectives towards larger, more impactful, decisions down the line. As a leader, it will not only complement my participative leadership style, but also welcome the development of critical thinking skills with my team.

As our video discusses, conditioning for complexity allows the decision maker to practice making smaller decisions, and then gradually increase the complexity of our decisions over time, not all at once (Iyengar, 2011). Iyengar’s low choice to high choice model has proven that “less is more” and allows us to remain engaged by learning how to choose in a focused manner based upon practice, comfort, and the familiarity of making decisions (Iyengar, 2011).

Our decision quality and satisfaction improves by remaining engaged and learning to make more complex decisions over time with practice. Overall, Sheena Iyengar is one of my favorite TED speakers; her simple yet effective approaches to common decision-making barriers are broken down easily and demonstrate that we can learn to be “be choosy about choosing” (Iyengar, 2011).

Until we blog again!

References

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton On Making Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Iyengar, S. (2011, November). How to make choosing easier. Retrieved from TED.com: http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose