MSLD 632 Module 9 - Role of Emotion in Decision-making

Role of Emotion in Decision Making

            Decision making process is often faced by a factual and rational process (Shiv, 2011), where the cognitive undeniable human trait is neglected. Shiv brings the emotion factor of the human cognitive ability to reality when it comes to decision making, specifically on the confidence aspect of the process.            

            Emotion is present in decision making on the consumer (buyer, student, cadet, follower and so forth) perspective as it is in the provider (seller, professor, sergeant, business leader and so on) perspective. No matter for how long the subject was neglected, neither how it still is condemned by some researchers, entrepreneurs, traders and the long list of the fact-only-based rational defendants, it is crucial that emotion is invoked in the decision-making process for persuasion and confidence purpose (Shiv, 2011). Hence, in order to have anything like a complete theory of human rationality, we have to understand what role emotion plays in it (Simon, 1983).

Reflecting on my own experiences related to emotions and confidence, and can recall two situations, one in which I was extremely confident of the outcome, and a situation in which I was less confident of the outcome.

High Confidence Experience

            Ten years ago, I decided to shift my career from the hospitality field to aviation, and I faced a challenge in this decision-making process. The general manager of the hotel I was working in that moment, when I asked my resignation, disapproved my decision. He mentioned that I have been promoted twice in the period of six months, and the last promotion happened one month before my resignation. It was a new position in that branch, and a prosper one, which could open several doors for me in the company and in the field in general. I was quality inspector, responsible also for customer satisfaction, service recovery, preparing the hotel for internal and external audits, and analysis of the rooted issues with proposal of solution to headquarters.

When he approached me with his disapproval arguments I have had already challenged myself with the same arguments. I was leaving this position to be a flight attendant.  I got information from people in the aviation field, I did my researches on where my new career, and challenged my medium and long goals as a professional, and apart from all this, I really wanted the shifting. I wanted to have different perspectives from different background, I wanted to impact on more people’s lives in a daily basis, I had my personal dreams also of travelling and learning new languages. In the meeting with him, on the day I received the invitation of a domestic airline to join the company, he tried to convince me of his reasons, and I ended up convincing him.

I had my factual arguments, which made him doubt of his (at least looked like by his facial expressions), but when I put my emotion on the arguments, and all my personal reasons also, he had no arguments left and wished me good luck. I believe that what made the shift on his mentality was the passion and the confidence I had in my speech on that meeting. there were some information cascades influencing his decision on that point and I made a conscious decision, and I knew what I was risking, what I would perhaps miss, and knew the possibilities waiting for me. I was fully confident at that point and my attitude reflected as so.

Low Confidence Experience

            Last week I was buying and selling used furniture and house décor. As I mentioned before in discussions and blog posts, I am a horrible negotiator when it comes to monetary value. I am not comfortable at bargaining, and I am not even too attached to money, so I easily influence by persuasive “traders”. Selling my couches, I advertised based on the second market prices, their conditions and design. I ignored the utility factor and how much I would spend to get another sofa set. The price I accepted on the offer was lower that I believe today that could be. I was not just showing insecurity on the sale, but I mentioned that I was not sure on the decision of selling, although I had accepted the deal already on the price. As soon as I trembled, I got a call from the buyer, setting up the time to pick up the couches, and as insecure I was, just accepted and went with the flow of the negotiation set by the buyer.

            On the same week, as a buyer, I was in doubt of my purchase on the second-hand home décor. Clearly in doubt, the seller pushed me on the time argument, stating she had an appointment and didn’t have much time for my indecision. I spend 10 minutes looking at it, and finally bought them, still doubting while driving back home. 

Learning Outcomes

            There are several learning outcomes of these two experiences, but on the subject matter, my main learning point is that when someone lack confidence, the other party on the negotiation process can use it as an opportunity to “win” the deal. I believe the same applies when trying to sell an idea, to influence a follower, and in any other situation where confidence plays a crucial role. Emotions reflect in confidence, and confidence is one of the defining point of the a successful outcome.

References

Shiv, B. (2011). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc&feature=youtu.be, on March 09^th, 2019.

Simon. H. (1983). Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

MSLD 632 Module 8 - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Often leaders chose one leadership approach claiming to be their leadership style. Other leaders base their decision in past experiences only. Effective leaders learn to shift their decision-making styles to match changing business environments (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic contexts as presented by the authors, call for different managerial responses. By correctly identifying the governing context, staying aware of danger signals, and avoiding inappropriate reactions, managers can lead effectively in a variety of situations.

The authors present four contexts and add a new one, which represents the context and many leaders find themselves for not knowing where the situations is placed in the framework quadrant.  The main four context are:

1.      Simple Contexts: The Domain of Known Knowns

2.      Complicated Contexts: The Domain of Known Unkowns

3.      Complex Contexts: The Domain of Unknown Unknowns

4.      Chaotic Contexts: The Domain of Unknowables

This week I presented examples of decision making based on the Cynefin framework on

the discussion board of my Master studies, and I believe they are my best examples. Two of them which I think represent and can bring up the traits of Cynefin are in the complex and simple domain.

 My Simple Context: Rending First Aid On-board

It happens often, as I frequently operate flights from 7 to 17 hours non-stop. All the traits from the domain mentioned above is present in this constant decision I need to make while working. At first, me or my team members are approached with the initial information, and from that point on, thought questioning, we get to find the patterns and cause-and-effect, and go through the knowledge we gained in medical training. All our decision are based on facts, with no room for emotions or intuition on decision making, as any mistake from not following the facts can lead us to legal consequences.

As the context traits involves repeating patterns and consistent event, clear cause-and-effect relationships, existence of right answers and fact-based management, I need to first sense, then categorize, and lastly respond to the situation. It happens in seconds, depending on the medical situation. I also need to ensure that proper processes are in place, delegate some tasks depending on the complexity of the incident, base my action in best practices, and communicate in clear and direct ways. All these traits presented by author fits in this example.

Complex Contexts: In-flight Decompression

In 2014, I passed through a decompression on board, with 200+ passengers and 10+ crew members. There were a variety of factor raising, and with that, the challenges as well. The aircraft, from 37.000ft descended to 8.000 ft in, and this caused extended consequences. Me, along with the other leaders, had the safety to be concern and to apply procedures, the crew looking for guidance, and mental and emotional support, the for passenger for clarification, and at a later stage for first aid. It is a pattern-based situation with competing forces and ideas.

This is a typical multiple context situation and decision-making process. At first, I took the steps of a simple context, acting first and following commands from the Captain. It started becoming complicated when customers and crew members started reacting to the event (physically and mentally), when the command changed three times in ten minutes about what to expect as a final decision, consequently affecting my current decision. From this point, when I could move around until hours after landing the situation was complex, and that was the stage I mainly could play as a decision maker. That was my and the other two leaders call. Where to land, the time available, the customer medical conditions, the crew emotional state, the preparation for priority and emergency landing is case another system fails, and mainly my own mental state, as my life had just been in threat since I have faced the unknown situation until declared it was a decompression, after a rapid and nose down descent. In this complex stage of the situation I probed, sensed, and then responded, increases the level of  communication, quickly opened up for discussion with other leaders onboard, managed starting conditions and monitored for emerging conditions.

5 Ways Cynefin can provide an improved context for decision making

1.      Diagnosing the context: the frameworks allows analysis of he context based on characteristics of the situation

2.      Guideline for action: based on each context, the framework provides a guideline for leader to act, and takes in consideration the transition of context, consequently the possibility of the actions.

3.      Presents the threats: highlights the two side of the coins in the leaders action, showing how vulnerable a leader can be, independently of how good the approach is. This brings awareness to the “table”, pushing a leader to constantly self-reflects on the Cynefin presented dangers and any other threat that could be arisen.

4.      Provides recommendation suggests how to deal to each threat, which in my opinion works as a closure on how effective the framework is, while wrapping the entire context.

5.      Reinforce the importance of flexibility: independent of the guidelines, and the list of the traits, leaders job, dangers and response, it highlights the importance of flexibility in diagnosing and action based on the contexts.

3 Ways each quadrant of the Cynefin Framework assists my decision-making

Simple Context

1.      Increase my awareness of complacency

2.      Keep me focused on the context diagnosis, not facing complex and complicated context as simple

3.      Reinforce the importance of micromanaging avoidance

Complicated Context

1.      Make me consider the creation of panels

2.      Reinforces the importance of inclusion of stakeholders.

3.      Makes me aware of the common neglection of nonexperts and its risk

Complex Context

1.      Highlights patience and the importance of deep reflection

2.      Increase my awareness of possibly acting as in simple context, with command and control approach

3.      Makes me aware of how important it is to be aware of emergences, more than fact awareness.

Chaotic Context

1.      Makes me accept there is not right answer and failing is part of the context

2.      Makes me understand how to understand the context, pushing me to act first, instead of sensing first.

3.      Teaches the right approach on transforming the chaotic, a complex context, gaining control and awareness and the decision making process unroll.

Reference

Snowden, D. F., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85, 68-76.