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. 

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 Module 6 - The High Cost of Conflict

The High Cost of Conflict

            Resolution, presented by Levine (2009), is the best alternative to conflict. Resolution is not about winning or losing, and as so, both parts need to have a similar feeling and conclusion after the resolution alternative is found and put in practice. Levine highlights the high costs of conflict to reinforce the reason behind the resolution as the most effective solution. According to the author, the cost of conflict is composed of the following:

1.      Direct cost: fees of lawyers and other professionals.

2.   Productivity cost: value of lost time (the opportunity cost of what those involved would otherwise be producing).

3.   Continuity cost: loss of ongoing relationships including the “community” they embody.

4.   Emotional cost: the pain of focusing on and being held hostage by our emotions (being described as the heaviest/highest one and the main reason to look for real resolution).

            Resolution starts with the mindset. The willingness to not simply resolve but to resolutely find out what is going on the other parts’ mind, seeking for a solution in which both benefit of the outcomes. Levine (2009) calls the first step of Resolution as Developing the Attitude of Resolution, which means choosing to think differently by listening, sharing concerns, and knowing there is an agreement waiting to be discovered. On the third step, listening is part of its title: Listening for a Preliminary Vision of Resolution.

            Going through all steps, it is clearly that dialog and communication is the main key of this apparently complex process. After the mind is set with openness and desire to find a solution which both parts genuinely agree on, conversation comes next and go until the end of the resolution process. I often witness several books published regarding communication, but I found that listening it is still a topic which lacks attention on the field. Headlee (2015) reinforces the importance of active listening during a conversation, a subject that MindTools (2015) covers on a summarized, but relevant article. MindTools mentions that active listening involves 5 attitudes to be effective:

1.      Pay attention – put your thoughts or hold

2.      Show that you are listening – give verbal and visual signs of presence on the dialogue.

3.      Avoid interrupting – wait for the story to be completed and respect the time necessary to be delivered

4.      Defer judgement – do not jump to conclusions

5.      Respond Appropriately – be mindful when asking, commenting and suggesting

Levine (2009) says how crucial it is listening in the process of resolution, listening without interruption, listen to genuinely understand the other’s point of view and feeling, listening for equal transforming outcome. This brings to my memory a recent experience I had, not involving a conflict, but simply a chat about a deep subject. One of my colleagues at work was asking for suggestion for sightseeing with her father, who was coming over for 3 days to visit the town we live in. I first asked if he was coming alone, she confirmed in a normal tone, but something in her eyes made me assume there was something else she was not comfortable on sharing. I let her talk, and soon she shifted the conversation to her father’s traits as a human and as a tourist. I have never met that colleague before, so it was interesting listening to personal perspective about someone so close to her in such a deep way. 

All my suggestions did not fit her father’s style or expectations, and she kept saying he was different, hard to please and so on. I was tempted to interrupted and ask why and how he described her, but I controlled and let her talk. In this experience was easy because I didn’t want to invade her space and make her uncomfortable about sharing something too personal. I decided then to keep giving attention, and show I was listening, avoiding interruption or judging. Usually suggestions and question run into my mind, and I play stories and often I get distracted by my thoughts. This day I decided to listen, just listen and try to focus on the conversation as a listener.

It worked out and out of the blue she shared that her mother passed away recently, so that factor made it harder to please her father in every sense. This information changed completely my point of view on the conversation, and even my suggestions for their trip. Then I made a comment of how perhaps I would behave, and that I could not imagine how hard is for her to deal with that situation and to decide about keeping her job, since it keeps her away from her father. She concluded the conversation saying that this reaction is only possible to find out when faced directly the reality. The nicest part of listening was giving her the opportunity to share her struggles, her pain, her expectation from that point on in her life, and to listen to her expectation from people around her, how everyone around her did not respond appropriately to that expectations.   

            Listening was powerful, the greatest tools on that conversation, and I have learnt that it creates not simply an opportunity to the one’s speaking, but to the listeners to shift their idea and perspectives. It has been so different from how I usually behave in a conversation. It was a new experience to control my thoughts and hold my words (something I am practicing in my marital relationship lately), to simply listen, fully there, trying to empathize and understand the deep emotional costs of that self-conflict my colleague was going through.

            Empathizing is possible through listening (verbal and visual communication). Empathizing perhaps runs parallel to active listening. Paul Ekman (2010) and Joan Halifax (2010) brings the subject in an interesting way, talking about the power of empathy with deep illustrations. Empathy and not sympathy, can be reached through active listening, and I believe it to be crucial and the real foundation of the communication process which can lead to real resolution.

References

Ekman, P. (2010). The roots of empathy and compassion. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AgvKJK-nrk, on February 17, 2019.

Halifax, J. (2010). Compassion and the true meaning of empathy. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/joan_halifax?referrer=playlist-how_to_tap_into_our_collective_empathy#t-6651, on February 17, 2019.

Headlee, C. (2015). 10 Ways to have a better conversation. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/celeste_headlee_10_ways_to_have_a_better_conversation?referrer=playlist-the_art_of_meaningful_conversa, on February 15, 2019.

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

MindTools (2015). Active Listening. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/CommSkll/ActiveListening.htm, on February 15, 2019.

MSLD 632 Module 5 - How Protected are Your Protected Values?

How Protected are Your Protected Values?

           

In Hoch (2001), the authors open chapter 14 saying how important are values and how they play a direct role in decision making. Values are criteria for evaluating states of affairs, that are explicitly and reflectively endorsed by the holder, and they are our best judgments of the goodness of outcomes, although I personally do not agree they are as reflective as the authors initially state, an opinion I will explain along this post.

The issue with values happens when people try to guard them against inconsistencies, by creating protected values (PV), which while providing a way for people to avoid making harmful trade-offs, makes it impossible to satisfy across all situations. Protected values mean that they will never be traded off for another gain, but what the authors prove through scientific researches is that even these values can fade in certain contexts, which means, they are not as protected as claimed.

Dealing with values is not an easy task, since it brings beliefs based in background, culture (dominant values of the society), and often comes from childhood (Taylor, 2012). The effect of dominant cultural values and how people hold onto them while making even small decisions, is shown by Iyengar (2011). The complexity of PVs carries consequently complex, but possible, solutions. The process of decision-making is particularly difficult when it involves emotional and ethical values or when it puts values in conflict, although conflicting values can be used as a strategy to dribble the negative restricting influence of PVs (Hoch, 2001).

It is important to know when and why values and decisions may be inconsistent, to find effective solutions. Going through the source of theses inconsistencies, the authors in Hoch (2001) mention that a range of studies has shown people are inconsistent in identifying their preferences, even across seemingly minor changes in the way the questions are asked. This point brings me back to a speech given by Barry Schwartz (2005), when the professor raises the paradox of choice, how our preferences, the simultaneous options available and our values have been shaped along the years, in parallel with the minor changes of how the questions are being asked, which is a relevant point brought by Iyengar (2012) as well.

Inconsistencies in preference do not occur randomly, but rather are sensitive to and shaped by the context of the decision. Many studies have shown that the context of decisions robustly and consistently affects preference. Among the contexts that affect the application of values are (Hoch, 2001):

1.      Sequential versus simultaneous (if options are presented one at a time, decision makers may be more likely to trade off values than if they see all options simultaneously).

2.      Buying versus selling (people are more focused on values when they are asked to give up or sell something than if they are buying or obtaining it. Selling (giving up) is more driven by emotions such as guilt and responsibility, reflecting general ethical values.

3.      Pricing versus rating (decision makers also tend to weigh values more heavily when they are rating options rather than pricing them).

The reason why people abandon their values also is related to the construction (or lack of it), leaving just an appearance to be strongly held. I believe values are formed usually without consent of the holder, and not constructed by him/her. I can see in this personal analysis the passive way that values are brought to our lives as social beings. This nature carries the fact that rarely values are put to test. In contraction of my analysis, the authors in Hoch (2001) state that values are like concepts, which are constructed from knowledge and experience as well. The authors highlight that if values are seen as constructed, we can ask whether they are constructed well, just as we can ask whether concepts are formed well. Constructed or formed, this passive nature of values leaves a gap on its strong foundation and consequently on its consistency and accuracy. If PVs are unreflective in this way, then they should be put into simple challenges, as questioning, analysis while conflicting the consequences inside the same context, and proposing counterexamples, strategies that have been tested to be effective in researches.

Reflecting on three of my major values, based on my beliefs (analysis of values formation), and considering the pros and cons (applying the challenging strategy) of each belief, and their consequence (as a conflicting strategy), I came to the following conclusion, in no specific order:

     

Value 1: Truth

      * Belief 1: Is always the right thing to do, to hold on to.

- Pros: shows trustworthy character, building trust among others, and bringing a feeling of accountability and accomplishment in following by principles formed in childhood and followed by my religious beliefs.

- Cons: in decisions involving finances, especially in intense trading markets, lye or omission, could be used as a playing card in negotiation.

            * Belief 2: Do not leave gap for contradictions

- Pros: Peace in moving on after mistakes are made, confidence in dealing with the negative impacts of poor decisions.

- Cons: being blamed and judged for poor decisions, intensifying the feeling of failure.

            * Belief 3: Strengthens confidence in decision making

- Pros: in doubting negotiations, it gives the confidence of using the truth as a trade resource, by knowing that whatever the consequence of the negotiation, it will come in my benefit.

- Cons: losing all types of opportunities (financial, career, personal, social) which could be enhanced if lying even if slightly.

            * Potential consequence

I have witnessed already all the cons mentioned, and that is why I hold into this value while making decision. I have discussed this PV in a previous task of this course, and ironically, I have been faced with several situations right afterwards, which I planned to lie to take financial advantage. Hoch (2001) mentions that money is a common factor of PVs inconsistency. Every time I played a negotiation in my mind using the “power” of lies, I remembered about what I mentioned in that task. Just by thinking of it, and perhaps using it at first unconsciously, it shows how not so protected this value is for me.

Value 2: Loyalty

* Belief 1: Shows the depth of my principles

- Pros: clarity of who I am and what I am based onto.

- Cons: If not followed, brings irreversible consequences, especially in personal relationship.

            * Belief 2: Brings only peaceful consequences

- Pros: avoid distraction while completing important task, in leisure times, it allows to live it fully, since my mind is in peace, deduct one possible subject in my overthinking brain/mind.

- Cons: does not allow to live new opportunities, when the current in in question.

            * Belief 3: Keeps positive reputation and protection of positive image

- Pros: long term professional deals and lasting personal relationships

are more probable.

- Cons: over focus on reputation and image, possibly distracting from other important values.

            * Potential consequence

If loyalty is fully on hold, I believe it brings more positive consequences. I use it subconsciously as trade coin for my relationships. I can remember a time, in my teens, that I was used to firmly say I would never cheat on someone, and caught myself doing it when I was a “convenient” environment, and in an “inconvenient” relationship. As a teen I was so full of certainty and when I realized I have broken this value, I also realized that values are abandoned according to convenience, unless they are tested. After abandoning it, I still went back to my values, and brought the truth to the table. There were consequences, but afterwards I was simply in peace, and I did not repeat my mistake, because after tested I just confirmed it must be a highly protected value. Nowadays, I believe it is the main foundation of my marriage and my valuable friendships.

Value 3: Perfection/ Mastery

* Belief 1: Excel is a win-win attitude (present and future)

- Pros: creation of a habit in exceling, outstanding in the crowd, creation of career opportunities

- Cons: makes it difficult to define priorities, when overwhelmed in tasks.

            * Belief 2: expose your strong beliefs

- Pros: exposing trustworthy character (as in other values), being looked for when people need a task accomplished.

- Cons: if I fail, it bring disappointment on people (especially myself), questioning my value as a whole.

            * Belief 3: no matter the current reality, mastering shows who I am

- Pros: more than a value or a belief, it becomes a label.

- Cons: self-expectations, to the overwhelming point.

            * Potential consequence

Currently I am questioning this value, mainly because the way I am facing my studies. I always gave my 1000% on every task given to me and taken by me (especially with studies and career). I am dealing with different decisions and passing through a shift in focus in my personal life, which is jeopardizing this value. I strongly believe I need to balance my life, and stop being so harsh on myself, because it hurts me in the long-run, but when I see the results of my work (not just in my master, but in my job) it makes me feel frustrated for the poor-quality of a delivered task in hand. And to my surprise I did not find a balance either. But I am looking for solutions, sparing more time for my studies, dedicating myself more in this given time, and controlling other personal time frames.

Before this exercise, I was already aware of how unprotected my pseudo-protected values were. This exercise assisted me on going through them one-by-one and re-evaluating if they are values that should be protected or not in negotiations. Although is a consequence in process, I believe it was of a great value to better understand myself, increasing my self-awareness, which I believe is the key for success.

References

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

Iyengar, S. (2011). How to make choosing easier. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose#t-8329, on January 25^th, 2019.

Iyengar, S. (2012). The art of choosing. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing#t-84862, on September 17th, 2018.

Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice. Retrieved from  https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice#t-45566, on February 5^th 2019.

Taylor, J. (2012). Personal Growth: Your values, your life. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201205/personal-growth-your-values-your-life, on February 7^th, 2019.

MSLD 632 Module 4 - Deception in Negotiations

Deception in Negotiations

Deception in negotiation is a common practice, as according to Hoch (2001), people, in general, are more comfortable with the lies of omission. When it brings more benefits than costs, negotiators become more likely to lie, and with that parameter in consideration, we cannot deny the negative outcomes of deception.

While reflecting in ways I can reduce my vulnerability to deception, I need to think through two point of views: how to reduce my deception in negotiations and how to reduce the chances I am a victim of deception.

One way to reduce my vulnerability deception is to return my principles and ideals. Lying was un unacceptable rule at home while being raised. I believe the corporation environment, involuntarily, keeps trying to get this value from employees, along with the news, with the bitter reality of the world as soon as you start socializing. When I catch myself thinking of lying to take advantage in a negotiation, I ask myself, “if my parents were watching me, would they be proud of it?”. In my conjugal relationship, this is a subject me and my husband bring to the “table” constantly. While talking and thinking of solutions for problems, if one mention about any type of lie to achieve its goal, the other reminds that lying is not an option. I am fortunate that my husband’s background is even more strict in this subject, so my value from childhood is maintained with less effort. I have read Hoch (2001) statement about a cost-benefit calculation of lying, but for me I prefer to only look at the cost, as I do not see the benefit as truly benefic.

Another way to reduce my vulnerability, but this time to guard myself against deception is being alert for the cues, using the 5^th rule of negotiation listed by Alan McCarthy in a video published in 2011: listen more and talk less. When McCarthy mentioned “listen” he includes visual observations as well. This rule speaks out loud to me as I am talkative and uncomfortable with silence. Julian Treasure (2011) lists five ways to a person to listen better, which are exercises I practice sometimes to improve my capability for listening. Increasing my awareness through silence and pure observation skills is one valuable way to guard me from deception.

Hoch (2001) presents a table (11.1) adapted from Fiedler and Walka (1993) with cues to detect lies. Keeping in mind these vocabulary, visual, vocal and verbal cues, along with my increase of silence and awareness methodology can be a powerful tool to guard myself.

The forth way I can think of decreasing my vulnerability to deception is never make a quick deal, which brinks me back to McCarthy’s 9^th rule and to my most recent experience in negotiations, where I was misled and overstated a claim (on the same experience)

I am looking for apartment to rent, and by the first week looking on line and personally visiting them, I found an apparent good deal (furnished, good price, low agency commission, community fee included and low deposit cheque value). Without hesitating I called the agent to make a deal. (I didn’t place an offer, or made questions, I haven’t even met personally the agent yet). To my “benefit” it was weekend and I could not complete the process with the government, so the rental process was postponed. In the meantime, I looked for scam information, as they happen often where I live, and I found that some payment requests by the agency were illegal by law, even though the answer of the agent made sense when I asked. I was almost misled to a possible scam, due to deception from the agent and my rush to close a deal. In the same negotiation, when I saw some details in the draft contract, I firmly asked for more detail in the contract. By the way I communicated with the realtor, sound as I overstated a claim, deception my knowledge in real state. I have done few searches online regarding to real state in the country, and I sounded as an expert just to get what I wanted. I didn’t go too far to leverage my position, as the agent finally agreed with my requests for the contract, when I mentioned I would not close a deal, but to be honest I do not think I would go too far to close the deal, as it was a good deal for me, even though it could present some traps.

References

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

McCarthy, A. (2011). The 10 Rules of Negotiation. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy0MD2nsZVs&t=600s, on Febaruary 2^nd, 2019.

Treasure, J. (2011). 5 ways to listen better. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_treasure_5_ways_to_listen_better, on December 14^th, 2019.