MSLD 635 Module 2 - How Companies can make Better Decision

How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

Hock et al (2001) state that only few of us are aware that we do not make good decisions, and one of the reasons is that, as long as the results are positive, we do not look closely to our decision processes. Blenko (2010) lists four elements for an effective decision making:

1.      Quality: goal achievement

2.      Speed: how fast decisions are made and how it plays a role on its effectiveness

3.      Yield: the planned decision is coherently put in practice

4.      Effort: are the action being fully embraced and acted upon.

Through an extensive research, Blenko (2010) confirmed her hypothesis that decision making effectiveness is correlated with employee engagement and brings positive financial results. Considering the conclusion that for a change to happen in its totality, it requires the involvement of the organization also as a whole, it is impossible to neglect the importance of the employees as change agents. On the last three elements of Blenko’s list, the direct and indirectly correlation between the decision and people involved in the change is undeniable.

Blenko (2010) also listed steps for effective decision making:

1.      Understanding how well decisions are being made

2.      Identifying critical strategic and operational decision

3.      Setting up decision for success by defining what is the decision, who is involved, how it will be implemented and when (calendar)

4.      Ensuring support from all elements of the organization

5.      Holistic embedding/ embracement inside the organization.

Again, if a closer look is taken at Blenko’s five steps, it is undeniable how the human factor plays an intrinsic role on the decision-making process and the power it “holds in hand” for its effectiveness. Considering the researchers’ data and presentation, I believe employee engagement should be considered not only as a change agent after the decision is made, but also in the organization/ change development. Critical decisions are not necessarily the big ones, but often includes strategic and operational decisions. Who best to describe and debate about operational factors if not the “operator”?

On implementing change, the frontline is the one that will deal and live with the change in a daily basis. How to ignore their opinion before the change is made, and on the ongoing process of the decision implementation? If employees do not understand the purpose behind the change, if does not see the long-term effects, I believe that hardly the decision or the change will happen fully.

      Impediments or barriers for good decision making, according to Blenko (2010), are not limited but include the following:

1.      Establishment of decisions that matter

2.      Unclear of who makes the decision and who is involved on the process of decision making

3.      Lack of leadership behind the decision-making process

4.      Lack of expertise

Adding to Blenko’s list, I also believe that an unsafe platform for open discussion, highly hierarchic organizations and departments agenda are possible and frequently witnessed barriers for effective decision making. I also pursue the idea that two more crucial elements should be included on Blenko’s list (previously stated) as: (1) Data collection/ Inventory and (2) Holistic Involvement. The own author indirectly describe these elements as important factors, but not necessarily lists as core elements for effective change.

      A way to apply this exercise and knowledge in my career is trying to find platforms to engage on the change process. In my organization often the workforce is only informed about the decisions made. We have internal and external Organization Development Practitioners at the moment but the involvement of employees is limited to change implementation, and often forced downwards. I know about trials before changes happen and I am also aware about change ambassadors that the company choose to represent the workforce on the change development. Looking for a platform where I can be part of this team would assist me on directly chang the decision-making enforcing reality. Lately I have been in workshops where changes are being informed. Although the workshops are designed for informative communication, it is clear that the company want to hear from employees after the change is being implemented. Taking this reality in consideration, I can open the communication channel with the departments directly involved in the operational change process (Product and Development) and report directly to my manager to look for support and guidance on opinion and communication patterns in the office, as I work remotely.

References

Blenko, M. (2010, October 13). How companies can make better decision, faster. Retrieve from https://youtu.be/pbxpg6D4Hk8

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

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. 

MSLD 632 Module 7 - Collaborative Decision Making

Collaborative Decision Making

            

Resolution, according to Levine (2009) involves a common agreement where everyone has the sense of winning, although the parties perhaps have the feeling of not getting all they wanted. Resolution requires (Levine, 2009):

1.      Moving from conflict to a workable agreement, a dynamic context for action and cooperation.

2.      Honoring everyone’s concerns.

3.      Taking actions that put the conflict and its impact to rest.

4.      Committing to ongoing relationships.

5.      Getting beyond everyone’s emotional positions.

6.      Establishing a vision for the future that lets go of blame, punishment, and damages and recognizes others’ value.

7.      Recognizing new practices essential for the success of ongoing relationships.

8.      Being willing to learn, having the courage to change, and the compassion to forgive.

            I recall a decision I made 10 years ago, which brought me back to the agreement requirements mentioned above, where I involved all stakeholders and in which I achieved my goals.

I was managing the leisure and sports department of a five stars beach resort. It was high season, and we had an average of 1000+ guests, including 300 children in the hotel every week, for a period of one entire month (the higher occupation of the year). My high season team was a group of 20 employees (registered and free lancers), while during low season this number dropped to half (only registered staff). The resort has required employees in high season to work extra hours without days off, provided those hours would be compensated in the low season to come. It was difficult as a manager to imply this condition, as I did not agree with that. I have done their job, in the same organization, while in their position, and I knew the costs of working that long hours and the condition provided to employees, but I needed to follow. There was no openness for dialogue between management and director board.

            The directors were three brothers, who did not share the same opinion and constantly changed small decisions without communicating with each other, and soon it was another conflict coming up. The director I responded directly to was a person with low flexibility, mood swings and arrogance, that almost every employee was afraid to address to or to greet him. Then, a day in high season, my best and permanent employee made a mistake and broke one rule, just to have that director watching her. I was called in his office immediately. I waited for him to calm down, and I listened, as he spoke up all his anger, his concerns and his frustration with that employee. When he finished, I started. I apologized on her behalf, and said I agreed with his anger, and understood the foundation of his decision. Then I explained she was my best and complete employee, working with group of all ages, with high energy, with the profile the department requires, with perfect attendance, and whom never caused an issue, among other strengths. He started again, saying that what she did was unacceptable, although I knew it was not jeopardizing safety or would impact highly on the brand, but that specific mistake was a touching on his core service brand. I concluded just asking for a chance to prove him she deserved the job and guaranteeing that mistake would never happen again.

            I did not consult the employee before the conversation, but I was working with her long enough to know her values and her professional goals. In the worst case, I could drop my request to the director. He accepted my request and shouted again while asking to make sure I would keep with my words, because he was giving me a vote of trust. He held me accountable for the agreement we made. I left the meeting, just to start another one with her. I went through all my conversation with the director, and she agreed she made a mistake and would not repeat it. I consulted her, if I could really deserve his trust at that moment, knowing how important it is in a professional environment and how rare it is coming from this director.

            High season was over, and all went smooth among the three of us from that point on. I was called in the office by him again, to be praised by our performance as a team, and the conflict we had previously was not brought to the table. On the employees’ dinner I received a prize for best employee of the hotel in that year, which for me represented the success of my daily decisions, as the one mentioned.

            I believe I went through all the requirements listed by Levine (2009), except requirement 7, although some clearer than others, and I have learnt few lessons from it:

1.      To be physically present in my work environment to ensure I am aware of the real conflict, and not only the ones I have heard of.

2.      To be brave to give my word on behalf of the employee, as it shows accountability for my leaders, and trust and partnership with my subordinate.

3.      To move from the inevitable emotional based mindset.

4.      To focus on the resolution and not on the problem.

5.      Reconsider who are all the possible stakeholders.

To conclude, I believe that agreement is possible when all parties want a real resolution, and resolution is possible when structured leadership ranks does not go beyond the common goal of the organization.

Reference

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to Resolution: Turning Conflict into Collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Berett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

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.