A632.9.3.RB - Role of Emotion in Decision Making

In this video, Prof. Baba Shiv of Stanford University talks about the importance of emotion in decision making. After watching this video, reflect on two situations; one, in which you were extremely confident of the outcome and what your attitude was towards the subject; and second, a situation in which you would less confident or not so confident and how you felt about the situation. Based on this module's readings and this video write a reflection blog detailing the situations above and describing the role emotion plays in decision making. Identify three emotional reactions for each scenario.

Emotion plays a crucial role in the decision-making process in order to resolve decision conflicts and emerge from decisions feeling confident, i.e., emotions yield decisions with conviction. What is the importance of decision confidence? From the firm's standpoint, low confidence will require high maintenance. From a personal individual standpoint, high confidence yields three things: 1. Passion is persuasive 2. Confidence IS contagious 3. And, most importantly, a decision impacting an experience which in turn leaves a lasting utility to extract from the experience motivated, engaged, empowered along with passion and energy. Confidence and overconfidence are greatly underrated (Professor Baba Shiv, 2011).

However, literature and research experts treat confidence, overconfidence etc as biases and traps. For example, according to Beshears and Gino (May 2015) there are common cognitive biases and traps that psychologists and economists have identified that impact impair decision-making including our ability to objectively evaluate information, form sound judgments and make effective decisions. From a critical thinking perspective, some of the dangerous common biases and traps include: action-oriented biases (e.g., excessive optimism and overconfidence), biases related to perceiving and judging alternatives (e.g., anchoring, groupthink, and egocentrism), biases related to framing of alternatives (e.g., sunk-cost fallacy and controllability) and stability biases (e.g., status quo and present) (Beshears and Gino, May 2015).

According to Beshears and Gino (May 2015), the foundation in how to use choice architecture to improve decisions is understanding that human beings have two modes of processing information and making decisions: System 1 is automatic, instinctive and emotional. System 2 is slow, logical and deliberate. The emotions for System 1 can be tapped for productive purposes. Research indicates that collaboration between the firm and client will strengthen the bond between the two (Beshears and Gino, May 2015).    

For example, a firm and client has the business goal and result of the client to be confident with the decision he/she is making or else this could become high maintenance, i.e., spending 90% of time with client who is still griping, checking with other consultants etc. A key enabler is required to create this situation. Body language including voice along with words will reveal lack of confidence. For example, a leader commander in the military is tasked to carry out a mission and need to give an order to troops. Imagine if his/her body language and voice did not project confidence about the course of action. Say World War II examples, General Eisenhower and D-Day (France), General Patton leading The Battle of The Bulge (Germany) on the way to Berlin and Admiral Nimitz leading The Battle of Midway Island (Pacific). And take Prime Minister Winston Churchill in The Battle of Britain when England was the lone survivor against Germany? What would be the result if they had not demonstrated courage, confidence along with leadership? If they did not display confidence about the course of action, the result would be suboptimal performance and output! The same is true for the business world.         

Decision confidence and wanting yields increased confidence including wanting, engagement and effort. Sometimes we have to burn the midnight oil, overcome obstacles and fruition of dreams. However, confidence does matter! Confidence and overconfidence does matter! Passion is needed, confidence and extraction of utility: motivation, engagement, empowerment along with passion and energy (Professor Baba Shiv, 2011).

References:    

Beshears, John and Gino, Francesca (May 2015). Leaders as Decision Architects. Harvard Business Review. Volume 93, Number 5, 52-62. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.    

                                                           

Professor Baba Shiv (2011). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making. YouTube. Retrieved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Create a reflection blog based on critically thinking about how the Cynefin Framework can benefit your decision-making. Consider the chart on page 7 of the HBR article A Leader's Framework for Decision Making and discuss decision-making in multiple contexts; include two specific examples of decisions in multiple contexts that you have made. Detail the considerations from the various contexts that influenced your decision.  Critically assess the Cynefin Framework and describe 5 ways it can provide an improved context for decision making.

Cynefin means "habitat or place" along with a place of actual belongings: cultural, religious, geographic, tribal etc; complexity model for a complex system; many paths influence who you are but never know fully who you are. The model emerges from data in social process. At the center (heart) of the model is "disorder" and is the space of not knowing what space you are actually in and need be in. Most people and organizations are in a disorder state assessing a problem scenario based on a preference for action, i.e., asking the question which knowledge expert should we use for the four categories.

There are three basic systems: ordered, complex and chaotic. Add a new center (heart) category called disorder. Disorder is the space of not knowing what space you are in, i.e., where we organizations are most of the time. Then divide disorder into two categories: simple and complicated. Manage in complex and complicated categories and only move a small amount of material into simple because it is highly vulnerable to rapid and accelerated change.

A Categorization model is a standard management consulting recommendation 2x2 quadrant matrix identifying two variables with high and low categories. This model is good for exploitation, however, poor for exploration and change. Also, this approach is taught and emphasized in most MBA programs and business schools. The biggest weakness and downfall is the inability to see differences until it is too late and then will be locked out. The model precedes the data.

The Cynefin model is a sensemaking model and the data precedes the model. Cynefin is also a decision making framework that recognizes the causal differences that exist between system types. It is also fast and easy way to move flip from systems and use the appropriate method for the appropriate domain. It is an ordered system that is simple, predictable and determined in advance. Manage in complex and complicated categories and only move a small amount of material into simple because it is highly vulnerable to rapid and accelerated change. Use a divergent approach depending on what space you're in. Think and analyze differently instead of "one size fits all" paradigm which is usually taught and emphasized in management theory.

From a critical thinking perspective, beware of complacency, biases and traps. Complacency includes "comfort zones," not thinking outside the box, past successes along with paradigms and framing. Leaders know how to identify with each Cynefin context in addition to changing behavior actions to match. Depending on what space you are in, think analyze differently instead of "one size fits all" which is emphasized in management theory and business schools. 

The Simple category includes bureaucratic and failure of the process (problem). It is fact-based management with knowns, fact-based management and clear cause-and-effect. The leader's job is to use best practices and ensure processes are in place. Danger signals are complacency and comfort zones.

The Complicated category uses good practices from knowledge experts analysis. There is usually more than one right answer. It is also fact and data driven. The leader's job is to listen to multiple (sometimes conflicting) recommendations and make a decision. Danger signals include getting bogged down by paralysis-by-analysis.

The Complex category includes emergent best practices with many competing ideas. There is a need for creative and innovative approaches. For example, politicians and military battlefield commanders get groups of the right people together to solve problems generating a right solution with path forward. The leader's job is to create environments and experiments that allow patterns to emerge and use methods that can help generate ideas. Danger signals are potentially falling back into command-and-control and looking for data facts instead of solutions.

The Chaotic category is characterized by high turbulence, tension, unknowns and no clear cause-and-effect. The leader's job is to look for what works instead of seeking the right answers and take immediate action to reestablish control of the situation. Danger signals are using command-and-control longer than needed and missed opportunities for innovation.  

For my personal style, I usually operate in the Complicated and Complex and only move a small amount of material down into the Simple and Chaotic categories. This is because my professional role responsibility as a kaizen leader and black belt includes six sigma lean manufacturing processes with team, process, ideas and facts data driven focus. This includes best practices, emergent, novel, new, unique, different and simulations.  

                       

References:                                                                                                    

Snowden, David J. and Boone, Mary E. (November 2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.    

 

What is the Cynefin Framework (2016). Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Worldwide. 

A632.7.4.RB-Collaborative Decision-Making

Reflect on the role of collaboration and getting to resolution in the process of decision-making. Rarely, if ever, do our decisions affect only ourselves. Consider the importance of getting other stakeholders involved; how can they help you make a better decision for all?  Detail a specific situation where you are faced with the decision, describe the process you went through and the outcome you were seeking. Identify 5 ways stakeholder involvement can help you make better decisions.  Did you achieve your objective?  Looking back at the decision you made and its consequence, was there anyone else that would have added value to the process? Identify 3 ways you may use this learning experience to make better decisions in the future?

Boeing uses a team based approach to collaboration known as "Working Together." It is a story about team building "Working Together" management strategy and the revolutionary design build teams (DBT's) that were created, empowered and engaged originally for the new 777 Program vision. The end result was that "working together" worked. It is a powerful concept and proved that "none of us is as smart as all of us." To survive in the 21st century there is a motto: "Nothing endures but change." Become adaptable and flexible or else we will not be in business (Boeing, 2016).

Prior to this strategy, the years rolled by and Boeing grew bigger. Bureaucracy and red tape crept in. Functional silos grew larger with little horizontal integration. Work groups and teams became isolated. The process became serial with the domino snowball effect. And people did only their piece of the job and handed it over without sharing knowledge and resources. Conflicts arose impacting productivity and quality. This was not lean and efficient.

Alan Mulally was one of the two 777 project leaders and developed created the "Working Together" philosophy and foundation. He later left Boeing (after being passed over on CEO position to Jim McNerney from 3M) to run Ford Motor Company and lead one of the most remarkable revolutionary turnarounds in the auto industry. Mulally believed in "simplicity" amid "complexity, chaos and confusion" and kept lego blocks and Fisher Price toys in his office to remind him and the DBT's of the importance of ease of assembly. It worked! Mulally retired from Ford and is currently a board director for Google. He was under consideration for the top job at Microsoft prior to the appointment of Satya Nadella.

Mulally summarized the "working together" philosophy at both Boeing and Ford, "It goes back to where Boeing started," "the power of coming together around a compelling vision of where the organization is going to go...and then coming together around a strategy to achieve which includes everybody, where everybody benefits, and then knowing what the status is and taking action." In a survey by Aviation Week and Space Technology, Boeing was rated the top choice among upper-tier workers, in what the magazine called "professional development/opportunity." (Wilhelm, Oct 15, 2014)    

Some of the "Mulallyisms" and words of advice:

• Seek to understand, before you seek to be understood.
• Hold two thoughts: What is the reality, and what do we want to create.
• Put people first – include everybody.
• Have a compelling vision, a comprehensive strategy and implement relentlessly.
• Trust the process.
• Facts and data set you free.
• Have fun.                                                                                                                 (Wilhelm, Oct 15, 2014)    

Warren Bennis argues and documents in his collaboration research masterpiece Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration of "THE END OF THE GREAT MAN" that "None of us is as smart as all of us." The myth of the triumphant individual is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. Whether it is John Wayne "The Duke," midnight rider Paul Revere or basketball's Michael Jordan in the 1990s, we are a nation enamored of heroes--rugged self-starters who meet challenges and overcome adversity. Our contemporary views of leadership are entwined with our notions of heroism, so much so that the distinction between "leader" and "hero" (or "celebrity," for that matter) often becomes blurred. In our society, leadership is too often seen as an inherently individual phenomenon (Bennis and Biederman, 1997).

And yet we all know that cooperation and collaboration grow more important every day. A shrinking world in which technological and political complexity along with the global economy increase at an accelerating rate offers fewer and fewer arenas in which individual action suffices. Recognizing this, we talk more and more about the need for teamwork, citing the Japanese approach to management, e.g., the Toyota Production System (TPS), as a call for a new model of effective action. Yet despite the rhetoric of collaboration, we continue to advocate it in a culture in which people strive to distinguish themselves as individuals. We continue to live in a by-line culture where recognition and status are according to individuals, not groups (Bennis and Biederman, 1997).   

The "working together" philosophy at Boeing has since been renamed "winning together" and has refined the team process to employee involvement teams (EIT's) for production, quality, supply chain and engineering. I am the "captain" of our high-performance industrial engineering team. We use conflict and resolution as an opportunity to develop, grow, mature and generate new ideas for continuous improvement. We include stakeholders including customers (internal and external) into our process for strategic alignment, e.g., vision, charter, operating guidelines principles, daily operations, customer survey feedback and goals. For example, for each customer survey, we review the results with the customer. There are usually several conflicts including roles responsibilities. To create resolution, we have a meeting to ensure strategy and vision are in alignment. For any gaps, we develop an action plan (agreements) with follow-up coordination meetings. This ensures a closed-loop communication process from conflict to resolution. This process is not perfect, however, our team is a model for other lower stage teams to follow because it works. We mentor and coach other teams in this too which enhances collaboration (Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Model) with emphasis on engagement.                                                               

References:                                                                                                    

Bennis, Warren and Biederman, Patricia Ward (1997). Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. New York: Basic Books (Perseus Books Group).                 

Boeing (2016). Retrieved http://www.boeing.com/

Levine, Stuart (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wilhelm, Steve (Oct 15, 2014). 'Working together:' Alan Mulally recalls Boeing, Ford in wide-ranging talk. Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle). Retrieved

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/10/15/did-alan-mulally-just-give-human-relations-advice.html

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

Reflect on a personal or business situation in which the cost of conflict was significantly greater than you would've preferred. Analyze the situation in relation to Stewart Levine's 10 principles of new thinking (p. 46). How would this have changed the situation? Could it have reduced the cost of conflict? What lessons did you learn from this exercise?

The cost of conflict includes direct costs, productivity costs (including quality and safety), continuity costs and emotional costs. For example, direct costs can include using neutral mediators for disagreements with attorneys and judicial system (courts etc). To add fuel to the fire, unfortunately there are many money hungry attorneys and legal firms who play with and use the existing system for greed and their own advantage. An example of productivity cost is the amount of money (cost in dollars or labor hours) an organization loses because of a scenario situation which has impacted production. An employee could be sick and not show up for work. This could require medical attention too which further increases the cost. An employee could be working at a slower rate because of an emotional issue too. Emotional intelligence (EI), i.e., emotional well being is attitude, awareness, understanding and control of emotions as defined researched from Daniel Goleman. Relationships can also be impacted damaged as a result of conflict and the emotional baggage we carry with us causes pain. Sometimes can never let go and it becomes embedded in us. Workers compensation, disability and medical leaves of absence can also impact costs. Continuity costs the way a scenario situation impacts the operating rhythm and team dynamics. For example, the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership model identifies several team stages, e.g., collaboration and high-performance. Areas that could be impacted include communication, morale, cohesiveness and trust. Team members will look for another job opportunity. One bad apple on a team can be the downfall. Many organizations have employee assistance programs too to get help assistance for employees.  

An example in which the cost of conflict was significantly greater than I would have preferred was one that resulted in a damaged relationship along with emotional scars. A few years ago, I attended a safety fair which included displays of safety projects, processes, exhibits, displays and also outside vendors suppliers. In addition, there were refreshments and giveaways including t-shirts and hats. I was reviewing the safety projects in one of the tents. These were displayed on tri-fold poster boards. As I was proceeding through the line and displays, I was shocked when I saw part of one of my projects being used by another person. I took a closer look and found that some of my work project was included on the display. I knew the person and questioned him about his project and the data collection. His response was that he had created a separate project, however, used part of my project as the foundation. And he was the official project lead too. Unfortunately, my name was not included on the display. Wow! What an experience. So after a brief discussion, I kept walking and then proceeded to talk with several people (including my manager) about this scenario. The feedback to me was to work it out with the other person.

My emotional state was impacted significantly as I could not believe this had happened. I slept on it that night and the net day went into work early to get with the other person. He admitted he should have been more open and candid about what he was doing including recognition, collaboration and creating partnerships. However, I believe there was a hidden agenda of him trying to take all the credit for the project along with making himself look good in front of leadership. As far as trust, respect and understanding, this situation still stays in my mind from this experience. And yes, I reviewed this with my manager etc for follow-up and documentation too. The good thing is that I was in control of my emotional intelligence and this did not impact my overall performance and working together with others on projects. The end result is that I have many great experiences. However, for long term collaborations and learning, this conflict scenario example can impact a relationship, team and organization.

References

Levine, Stuart (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.5.5.RB - Protected Values in Decision Making

Reflect on the concept map that you created in the previous exercise and consider the Dan Gilbert video from module one. Discuss your protected values and how far you are willing to go to support those values. Explore the level of  protection associated with each of your major values identified in the concept map and detail  your thoughts on each. Finally, discuss how those protected values would influence your decision-making.

I have the opportunity to have a career at Boeing and have been here for almost 19 years now too. No, actually I think I am very fortunate and maybe even spoiled! Boeing is a company and team of amazing people working in one of the most exciting industries in the world. When you consider our many accomplishments -- from designing and building the earliest biplanes to creating and supporting today's supersonic aircraft and spacecraft -- you might think we would be content with how far we've come. But a company of our size and scope doesn't succeed by resting on its laurels; we are constantly re-examining our capabilities and processes to ensure that our company is as strong and vital as our heritage. In fact, our culture mirrors the heritage of aviation itself, built on a foundation of creativity, innovation, aspiration and imagination. Values play a huge part in Boeing. Not once in awhile or every so often but every day. They are the foundation of the vision and embedded in the culture with choices and decision-making. All employees are expected to be an ambassador. The seven values include: integrity, quality, safety, diversity and inclusion, trust and respect, corporate citizenship and stakeholder success (Boeing, 2016).

Integrity includes character, ethical standards and taking personal responsibility and accountability for our behavior actions. Quality includes first-time quality and continuous improvement in all that we do to meet or exceed the standards of excellence stakeholders expect of us. Safety is we value human life and health above all else and take action accordingly to maintain the safety of our workplaces, products and services. Diversity is the skills, strengths and perspectives of our diverse team. Trust and respect is a culture of openness and inclusion in which everyone is treated fairly and where everyone has an opportunity to contribute. Corporate citizenship is being a responsible partner, neighbor and citizen to the diverse communities and customers we serve. We promote the health and wellbeing of Boeing people, their families and our communities. We protect the environment. We volunteer and financially support education and other worthy causes. Stakeholder success includes operating profitably and with integrity, we provide customers with best-value innovation and a competitive edge in their own markets; enable employees to work in a safe, ethical environment, with a highly attractive and competitive mix of pay and benefits, and the ability to further share in the company's success; reward investors with increasing shareholder value; conduct business lawfully and ethically with our suppliers; and help to strengthen communities around the world (Boeing, 2016).

For example, the three models I included on the concept map were SWOT, BCG and Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership (Krogerus and Tschappeler, 2008). These models are all used by Boeing. SWOT is used for mergers and acquisitions, e.g., McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International and Hughes Aircraft Company (1997). BCG is used for stakeholders to summarize Boeing divisions along with product mixes and lines in addition to strategy and tactics. The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership model is used for self-directed/high-performance teams. The seven values are all applicable for each model. There is no compromise (or exceptions) in applying the seven values for choices and decision-making. That's what makes Boeing great and an exceptional organization including celebrating the 100 year anniversary this year (1916-2016).

  

The Boeing vision states "People working together as a global enterprise for aerospace industry leadership." (Boeing, 2016)

References

Boeing (2016). Retrieved http://www.boeing.com/

Hoch, Stephen J., and Kunreuther, Howard C. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

      Krogerus, Mikael and Tschappeler (2008). The Decision Book: 50 Models for Strategic Thinking. New York, NY: W.W. Norton Company.

A632.4.5.RB - Deception in Negotiations

During the course of negotiations, people often misrepresent information to gain at least a temporary advantage. For example, a seller may fabricate existence of another interested buyer or a buyer may misrepresent the price and availability of an item from a different vendor. Reflect on deceptions in negotiations and describe four ways to evaluate information during negotiations. Relate an example of a recent negotiation in which you have been misled and one in which you may have overstated a claim.; define how far you would be willing to go to leverage your position.

Negotiation (similar to argumentation) comes into play when managers leaders need to influence those who actively disagree with them, e.g., new ideas, projects, processes, practices etc. The focus of argumentation is to create a foundation of superiority of one position over another, however, the focus of negotiation is to reach a conclusion that is acceptable to both sides. Negotiation process includes closed-loop communication to reach a decision when most people are in disagreement. A combination of both compatible and incompatible interests marks negotiation scenarios. Negotiators must have some common goal or they would not be negotiating. At least one or more issues must separate them or they wouldn't need to negotiate to reach a mutual agreement. For example, everyone (students) working in MSLD 632 class project group team probably wants a good grade of an A. However, some group members could prefer to spend their time relaxing or studying for other classes instead of meeting with the group or gathering documenting research. The amount of work each member does for the group then becomes a matter for negotiation. This negotiation process was documented on our group charter this week (Hackman and Johnson, 2013).

There are two negotiation climates: 1. cooperation, and 2. competition. There are huge differences between cooperative and competitive negotiation climates. Cooperation includes: open and honest communication, an emphasis on similarities, trusting with friendly attitudes, mutual problem solving and reduction of conflicting interests. Competition includes: very little communication with messages usually negative and misleading, an emphasis on differences, suspicion, hostility, one party wins over the other and escalation of conflict with negative emotions (Hackman and Johnson, 2013).  

The classical view, win-lose negotiating, suggests negotiations are frequently a form of a zero-sum game, i.e., whatever extent one party wins something, the other party loses. This is also known as distributive negotiating as resources are divided. Unfortunately, win-lose negotiations are common at many organizations. For example, it characterizes most bargaining involving material goods, such as the procurement of supplies or manufacturing raw materials. Win-lose negotiating can be seen at colleges and universities where each college attempts to negotiate the best operating budget for itself usually at the expense of other colleges (Ivancevich, Konopaske,  and Matteson, 2014).  

Win-win, or integrative, negotiating brings a different focus and perspective to the process. Unlike the zero-sum orientation in win-lose, win-win negotiating is a positive-sum approach which is where each party gains without a corresponding loss for the other party. This doesn't mean that everyone gets what they want which does not usually occur. It means that a mutual agreement has been achieved that leaves both parties better off than they were before the agreement. In order for conflict to be converted into a win-win situation, leaders managers need to accept the idea that conflict is useful and empower employees to actively engage in it. The win-win approach can be summarized by stating, "I want a solution which achieves your goals and my goals and is acceptable to both of us" (Ivancevich, Konopaske,  and Matteson, 2014). 

People are generally more comfortable telling lies of omission by not revealing information than lies of commission by actively misrepresenting information. Negotiators can misrepresent their interests and intentions: reservation prices, interests, intentions and material facts. Lies can also be told about oneself, about the target, about another person or about an object or event. Lies can also be a primary motivation to promote one's own interests or promote someone else's interest. Some lies can actually facilitate the communication process. During the negotiation process it is important to: establish trust, shift the frame, ask direct questions, listen carefully, pay attention to nonverbal cues, keep records and get things in writing (Hoch and Kunreuther, 2001).

I can improve my negotiation skills by becoming more aware of the styles and tactics of the other parties in negotiations. Most people, including myself are not very good at detecting deception and the best defense is to reduce the likelihood that people will use deception by developing trust and assurances to others that I will not use deception. E-mail and other information technologies can be used also to facilitate a less emotional approach, e.g.,  face-to-face confrontations etc.

References

Hackman, Michael Z. and Johnson, Craig E. (2013). Leadership: A Communication Perspective

(6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.                               

Hoch, Stephen J., and Kunreuther, Howard C. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ivancevich, John M., Konopaske, Robert, and Matteson, Michael T. (2014). Organizational Behavior & Management (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.  

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

Shoemaker and Russo discussed the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to guard against it.  Discuss three ways you can avoid "framing traps" and provide a detailed example of each from your life experience.  Could you have framed each situation differently? What did the exercise teach you about complex decision-making? What additional tools or "frames" would've helped you through the process? How much "risk" do you feel was in your recommendation? What did you learn about yourself through this exercise? 

According to Shoemaker and Russo (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001), there are three ways there are three ways to manage frames, "frame blindness" and avoid "framing traps." Shoemaker and Russo state, "Managers can consciously control their frames, rather than to be controlled by them - and even use framing to their advantage." The three techniques are: 1. see the frame by conducting a frame audit, 2. identify and change inadequate frames, and 3. master techniques for reframing.

The first technique, see the frame by conducting a frame audit, includes starting with surfacing an organization's frame(s), understanding the frames of others and developing an appreciation along with continuous improvement (CI) of the new frames. A good tool to use for this is a visual representation, i.e., a picture, because as the philosophy states a picture is worth a thousand words. For example, when I lead and facilitate lean manufacturing kaizen events at work, it is important to include all the process stakeholders who own the process and will be impacted by the decision. Sometimes I do not include all the stakeholders due to oversight. A good visual tool to use is a SIPOC model (suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, customers) and a team charter (stakeholders, goals, objectives, problem statement etc). This also promotes collaboration, teaming, problem-solving and team decision making. The result of all this is that we all understand one another frames better along with a quality decision and outcome. 

The second technique is to identify and change inadequate frames. According to Shoemaker and Russo (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001), "we must constantly challenge our own frames as to whether it is still effective and if there is a better way." Shoemaker and Russo go on to state that "poor results, surprises, inconsistencies, and difficulties communicating with others are indications of a weak frame." "Consider the possibility that your frame may be wrong or, at least, not perfect!"  (p. 147). Communication skills are probably the most important life skill. This includes, speaking, writing and listening. In the example above, it is so important to have open and closed-loop communication at kaizen events. If people are initially shy or tense about sharing ideas, have an icebreaker activity with introductions. It is also good to stimulate communication and sharing with food, e.g., coffee, donuts, etc. This also helps to develop team cohesiveness and bonding.    

The third technique is to master techniques of reframing. According to Shoemaker and Russo (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001), "we need to develop the capacity to synthesize and create new frames." "There are several elements to this skill including challenging your frames and those of others, and on having a repertoire of frames to work with." One of the best books I have read and presentations I have seen on dvd is by Joel Barker author of "Paradigms." Barker states that the easy part is new paradigms, however, the hard part is removing the old ones from the mind. Some of Barker's quotes and philosophy include:

·        Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.

·         When you drop any new idea in the pond of the world, you get a ripple effect. You have to be aware that you will be creating a cascade of change.

·         When most of us hear the phrase, 'survival of the fittest,' we assume it originated with Charles Darwin. It did not. The phrase doesn't exist anywhere in Darwin's first edition of 'Origin of the Species.'

·         Your successful past will block your visions of the future.

·         The past guarantees you nothing in the future if the rules change.
(Joel A. Barker Quotes, 2016)

Frames are related to paradigms and mental models but are less complete and held. However, these philosophies can be applied to reframing and change. Lesson learned is that we need to continually manage our frames to make better decisions.

This exercise taught me that complex issues usually cannot be solved with a single frame or by one person either. It is the responsibility of senior management leadership to develop an organizational culture (vision and operating guidelines principles) that promote collaboration, problem-solving and teaming (robust frames). This is where management differs from leadership. Managers operate within the boundaries existing frames and execute. Leaders engage and empower the organization for new ideas and ways of doing things. Above all, change is constant in today's global economy.

References

Hoch, Stephen J., and Kunreuther, Howard C. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Joel A. Barker Quotes (2016). Retrieved http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joel_a_barker.html