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.