MSLD 632 Module 3 - Reflections on Decision Making

Reflections on Decision Making

            Frames influence our thinking by simplifying issues. The price we pay for this benefit is distortion. These distortions can cause communication problems within a company. Being unaware of our frames poses an enormous risk, and even riskier is to frame complex issues and solutions based on one’s mental window and fail to notice the views offered by other windows. (Hoch, 2001).

Three ways to avoid frame trap:

Among all the tools/ methodologies/ ways to avoid frame traps, the three presented below are the ones I believe to be more powerful to me.

1.      Step back when realized I am being framed or applying thinking frame.

2.      Involve other on decision making, when time permits.

3.       Audit and surface my frames.

Coherent framing

A way to frame differently according to the situation is also to surface the frames and the entire context visually. Every situation requires a decision according to the information in hand, so the framing process needs to be coherent to the context.

Learning Outcomes

The reading and exercise taught me how peculiar is a complex decision making. I have studies that on my previous class, which only reinforced what I have learnt regarding to importance of the adaptability capability on the decision-maker.

About myself, I have learnt that I constantly frame problems and solution, but not necessarily do it based in facts. Intuition and emotions play a big part on my decision making process, which is my weakness to be strengthening in the future.

I am definitely not comfortable in living in discomfort which is crucial for a effective framing and possible reframing.

Leadership as key

Senior managers can be expected to ensure that the entire organization frames questions thoughtfully, that the dominant frames used throughout the organization are appropriate and updated as needed, and that complex decisions are evaluated through a variety of alternative frames. Ultimately, this is where management differs from leadership. Managers operate within an existing frame and execute; leaders ask the deeper questions, provoke new ideas and operate across frames, moving the organization from an old frame to a new one. Effective leaders challenge old frames, envision bold new ones, and contrast the two very clearly. (Hoch, 2001).

Reference

Hoch, S., Gunther, R., Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. New York, NY: Wiley.

MSLD 632 Moduel 3 - Framing Complex Decisions

Framing Complex Decisions

            The environment of business has become a maze of information and Internet-driven change, resulting in a significant increase in the complexity of business decision-making. (Hoch, 2001). Time is a constant factor in the current decision-making process, being crucial in different way. Decisions, often, need to be made faster or the competition “win the race”, contracts last less than in the past, and most important, information changes so often, changing with the same frequency and time, the decision itself.

            There are several tools to deal with the complexity of the current reality in organization. Below are described the three tools I believe to be of extreme importance in the organization I work for nowadays.

1.      Strengthening organizational capabilities

The organization is extreme diverse in employees background (culture and professional experience). This is possibly our main strength but apparently not well diffused. High leaders state diversity is great, but when an opinion is challenged from the bottom line to a high leader, their statement does not match reality.  Another capability is our structural/ physical resource (training area, simulator, IT hardware and software, capital and so forth). Allowing diversity to flourish through training and workshops for suggestions and opinions, would bring a great value to our organization.

2.      Adaptability/ Flexibility

As all organizations, the one I work for is highly impacted by the frequent changes of the business environment, trends, markets, and partnership and competition. Being adaptive and flexible in a reality like that is key to succeed in the maze of complexity. Very often, the changes required in the company take long to be implemented due to the amount of trials and the entire burocratic process. Being ready for quick decision with high impact could have saved a great amount of money in the company. The main issue is that the process is not as simple as it can be the solution. there are a lot of variables to be taken in consideration as stakeholders and department difference on interested, so adaptability should be rooted in the company’s philosophy/ mind set.

3.      Value human cognitive ability

As Hoch said, models are great to permit a more accurate decision making, but sometimes, data mining and warehousing present a blindness along with it. The author mentions that the combination of machines and man are crucial of the decision making process, and important is to capture, due to the accountability and ownership of a given issue.   

Given the relentless development of technology, complexity can only be expected to increase. This promises to lead to more intense and complex challenges for decision makers, but as the discussion above indicates, will also put more powerful tools into their hands for addressing these decisions. Continued changes will also mean that flexible approaches will become even more crucial for managers as the environment of decision making becomes so complex that working out all the details of decision contingencies before the fact is neither feasible nor desirable. (Hoch, 2001)

Managers will increasingly need to prepare the groundwork and capabilities for choice and use these capabilities to confront and deal with the moving targets as they appear in real time.

Reference

Hoch, S., Gunther, R., Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. New York, NY: Wiley.

MSLD 632 Module 2 - How to Make Choosing Easier

How to Make Choosing Easier

Psycho-economist and author of The Art of Choosing, Sheena Iyengar, through her research at Columbia Business School, shows one common issue people often face while making choices: the choice overload. She stated that nowadays, this became a common disturbance on the decision-making process.

For that problem, Sheena Iyengar propose four potential solutions:

1.      Cut, getting rid of the extraneous alternatives;

2.      Concretize, making the choice more real;

3.      Categorize, with less choices and more categories;

4.      Increase gradually the complexity, to keep the chooser engaged.

Summarizing, and defining the four techniques/ methodologies in one word, I would say “simplify”. The simpler it is, with less alternatives, quantitative and qualitative speaking, the easier and more probable it is a potential chooser to choose, according to the research.

These techniques, in my perspective, can be applied in every choice to make, not only as a consumer or customer, but also in daily personal and professional choices.

Cut and My Personal Implications

Hoch (2001) mentions experiments suggest that if there is too much stimulation, decision makers may try to simplify their behavior and thus choose less variety, or exhibit less creativity and openness to new ideas

This week I was listening to a podcast with Brian Tracy, speaking about building confidence and time management, and he mentioned that lack of focus or distraction is the main barrier to achieve success. I personally believe that information technology heavily affects the choices I make towards my personal success, due to the several choices I can make with an electronic in my hand. Every communication channel in a mobile phone, tablet or computer, nowadays, offer hundreds to thousands of links to click.

For an instance, I choose to distract while having my coffee in the morning, watching videos online (informative comedy), looking at my personal email, replying to my close friends and family, playing an easy game (sudoku, solitaire) and so forth. While doing so, I often realized that I spent more time that I planned to do so, just distracting before starting my day. Knowing that, last year I canceled all my social media accounts. It helped me to get less distracted and decreasing my procrastination, however I am still in the process of avoid distraction and alternatives that will not help me on achieving my personal and professional goals. The next step I made was deleting all game, news and video apps from my mobile phone, and in case I want to access something specific I do so through the website.

I believe these are potential practical solutions to cut extraneous alternatives, however I also defend the idea that cutting alternatives involves the little and often neglected choices one makes daily, as checking a device first thing in the morning for example or choosing to occupy your mind while having breakfast.

Concretize and My Professional Implications

Making my choices more real would imply in focusing my attention and work in one thing at a time, and automatically improving the quality of the results. For example, when people ask me what I want to do with my master’s degree, or what is my professional goal, I reply that I have short, medium and long terms goals. My short goals are working as a leadership trainer in a commercial airline for employees in the front line, my medium term in participating in researches and assisting coaches to get more experience to achieve my long term goal, which is being a Leadership Coach for Leaders. Because I aim the top of the stairs, I struggle to feel my short-term goal real, and I do not spend time working on it.

I know it is a step to achieve the long-term plans, but because I do not see it concrete, I cannot feel it. A possible solution would be doing researches and making a structure plan to enable me to climb the first step, and gradually achieve goal by goal, which brings me to the fourth methodology shown by Sheena, when trying to avoid complexity.

My own potential solution

Stop procrastinating and looking for distraction, I believe is a powerful way to increase my ability to make decisions. Even knowing the benefits of the two current I have, I realized they regress my learning and development process.

References

Hoch, S., Gunther, R., Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. New York, NY: Wiley.

Iyvengar, S. (2011). How to make choosing easier. https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose. Retrieved on January 19^t, 2019.

Tracy, B. https://play.google.com/music/m/D6mdy5xirse3nhcmgoabujegz2y?t=Brian_Tracy_on_Building_Confidence_-_SUCCESS_Talks

MSLD 632 Module 1 - Multistage Decision-Making

Multistage Decision-Making

Multistage is a dynamic decision-making itself. Multiple-stage decisions refer to decision tasks that consist of a series of interdependent stages leading towards a final resolution. The decision-maker must decide at each stage what action to take next in order to optimize performance. (Johnson & Busemeyer, 2001).

Critically thinking about my own decision-making process, I concluded that I am by far of using dynamic program models, listed by Hoch (2001) or any other models at all. I am often led by emotions and intuition, however, being aware of that and realizing I am neglecting rational steps to make decisions, from the smallest and routinely to the greater ones, I usually step back and try to think through it.

Even though I do not use any specific formulas and calculations, or plan forward and look at the far future, I reflect deeper of my decision, especially the ones will have a greater impact, and I have time to think before making it. The 6 steps to make a better decision listed by Brodie (2007) are often the ones I follow: (1) problem definition, (2) assess the implications, (3) explore different perspectives, (4) get clear on your ideal outcome, (5) weigh up pros and cons, (6) decide and act. I believe I fail on a good definition of the problem and still procrastinate on the decision to make, but I clearly can see a progression on my decision-making skills along the years.

I think the best way I could apply optimal dynamic decision analysis to predict the future impact of today's decision, is to check for personal data (looking at the past, my mistakes, and learning outcomes) and external data (researches) to benchmark for a better decision. Another factor I believe is extremely important and I fail on it, is to look at the far future, and all the long-term implications my decisions could bring along. Organizing all the data and the outcomes of my critical thinking, in a structured written record, could be an effective tool to optimize the process and the results.

Surviving without dynamic programmers, as Hoch’s (2001) concluded, can be effective perhaps in majority of the situations, however, can be drastic in higher stakes decisions, as there is no ground base and parameter, therefore no reaction plan in case of failure. Thinking this way, it improves my decision-making process since I clearly can see, following my readings and not just obviousness, the importance (although not absolute) of a dynamic programmer.

In my perspective, the most important point Hoch (2001) made, is at the beginning of the book, when he said:  

We have an opportunity to be more proactive. We need to make these decision processes conscious, to be aware of when we are cutting corners and when we need more thorough analysis. Building this awareness of the process-especially given the new complexities of decision making in our modern age-is crucial to successful management. We cannot always guarantee positive outcomes; many factors that affect these outcomes are out of our control. This awareness, however, ensures that we follow a coherent and conscious process that leads to better decisions.

References

Brodie, D. (2007) 6 Steps for Better Decision Making. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/?6-Steps-to-Better-Decision-Making&id=817450, on January 12, 2019.

Hoch, S., Gunther, R., Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. New York, NY: Wiley.

Johnson, J.G. & Busemeyer, J.R. Theory and Decision (2001) 51: 217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015507110940