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”
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
No comments:
Post a Comment