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

Week One - Multistage Decision-Making

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

Well, it is our first week and I am as usual overwhelmed…not only by the amount of information presented to us in the module, but moreover due to the scientific discussions regarding our decision making processes. I think one thing is for certain, this class is going to continue to provide several "ah-ha" moments as our future assignments unfold.

As I was reading the chapter, I was able to see how many of my daily decisions are made by referring to past experiences, and navigating through recent examples and outcomes which provided either positive or negative feedback to the outcome in which I wish to achieve. In this type of scenario, as our text points out, I am looking for patters to guide me towards more favorable outcomes, or what has shown over a repetitive time to provide optimal results (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001). But I found it incredibly interesting how our minds work when it comes to making decisions.

For instance, as blonde as it may sound, I never realized how easily decisions can be made when faced with several challenges, by one simple exercise - take your emotions out of the equation - and the answers almost seem deceptively easy. I never considered how much we tend to overcomplicate business decisions, or any decision for that matter, by allowing emotions to influence our entire process (Hoch et al, 2001). I find myself obsessing about this fact now and I feel like I am able to see so many personal and professional areas in entirely different light...by just taking emotion out of the equation.

From the moment I read this over the course of the week, I literally found myself using the practice of it without thinking; my husband was telling me about his day, and already my mind was making a list of all the emotions he was emitting as he spoke. He was explaining how he was really fired up and frustrated about a conference call regarding a potential employee went south. As he began to explain that this potential new employee, whom is also an old work partner and friend, sent an email to the president of the company regarding the salary offer was inadequate considering his current salary was almost $15,000 higher. My husband was incredibly frustrated because he, and others in the company, had already explained numerous times that the sales position had a much higher level of commissioned compensation, as well as the numerous other benefits being offered that his current employer does not extend.

Considering the base salary range had already been discussed prior to the offer being made, and the entire compensation package had been gone over in detail and the prospect said he understood and had no issue, my husband was disappointed that the offer was then not acceptable. He was unnerved not only because multiple people discussed the earning potential would be in excess of $35,000 more in year one, but also because the prospect was agreeable and had already verbally accepted the offer with multiple people; to reach out to the president unknowingly to have the offer re-negotiated seemed unprofessional and uncalled for.

As I listened to him vent, I asked him why he was unhappy; was it because the prospect was a friend, or it was a "done deal" and presented that way to senior management, or because if he was going to hired and report to you and is already playing these types of games, you feel you may have made a mistake in recommending him for the opportunity?

As we talked through the various feelings and emotions that were taking place, I asked him a series of questions which basically came down to a business decision...is he the best person for the job and your team, and if you do not meet his request, would you be able to find an equal or better qualified candidate instead to fill the position at this time?

I explained an alternate point of view by simply pointing out that if the prospect is still the best business decision for you and your team, then handle one part of the equation at a time; get the best person hired at a fair salary to keep business continuity on track. There will always be time to address more appropriate ways in which your team prefers communications in the future and the expected following of the chain of command when concerns arise. Once we took emotion out of the equation, it was much easier to isolate the peripheral noise confusing what the best business decision was for the operational goals of the business – to get this particular prospect hired. It seemed a logical and reasonable solution, as his skill set is what is unique, and in time he can be coached and mentored regarding his communication style versus what is the cultural norm for the business.

Additionally this week, we also touched on the dangers of being myopic; often times in my current leadership position, I do not tend to have a great deal of time to gather and mull over large amounts of financial data in order to base my decisions on. In a perfect world, I would love to have a few days to gather and dig into various ways of slicing and dicing the numbers so I could feel more secure in important decisions that impact my business office and our overall facility, but the reality is that time will never be available to me right when I actually need it. Our fast paced environment often forces me to make knee-jerk decisions based on current experiences. This is because healthcare is a very fast paced and information rich environment. But I am now learning to base them upon repetitive scenarios and post-research reviews as my senior management team prefers consistency in our operations and communications.

What I have been trying to do over the past few months after making a determination regarding our revenue position is go back and evaluate my work and the actual outcome a few weeks later to see if my assumptions are reasonable. That way for the next month end process, I have refined my criteria and evaluated my actions for going forward. If they appear reasonable, there is no reason to modify my current process. If I was too high in my estimations I can be adequately prepared to base my process and current input of information in a more appropriate manner after identifying where I went awry.

Although I do see how it would be appropriate to use Bellman's equation to solve complex linear problems in some respects, I am not at this time feeling that this would be a practical solution for me to learn to become a better forward thinker (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 42). However, I do see after the topics we explored this week that we tend to underestimate the value of the untapped potential in the future.

One of the things I think will stick with me for life was also the video and discussion this week regarding errors in judgment towards forward thinking and estimating value. This week, we came across that there are two types of errors we seem to inherently make; we are underestimating the value and chances of success, as well as the way we tend to calculate odds leads to our failures (Gilbert, 2005). As Gilbert points out, we rationalize our decision making by referencing our past experiences (Gilbert, 2005) versus being able to compare more relevant factors. As our reading this week confirmed, people tend to make emotional trade-offs when confronted with difficult decisions (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 21). Going forward, I think that 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). The tools and exposure this week will no doubt lead us to laying a solid foundation in which to do this.

Overall I think it was a fantastic start to our semester and I have never been more excited about a class and the content presented so far as I have been this week.

Until we blog again!

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.