Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

A632.2.3.RB

We all want customized experiences and products -- but when faced with 700 options, consumers freeze up. With fascinating new research, Sheena Iyengar demonstrates how businesses (and others) can improve the experience of choosing. Identify four of the methodologies Sheena Iyengar suggests as methods of helping us improve our experience in choosing. Discuss the implications of two of these methods in terms of your own decision-making as an individual and a member of an organization. How else can you improve your ability to decide?

Many of us are bombarded with countless options and inputs as consumers and decision-makers. Sheena Iyengar (2011) believes that having so many choices leads to decision paralysis. In fact, Iyengar (2011) describes this as a choice overload problem which “affects us even in very consequential decisions, we choose not to choose even when it goes against our best self-interest.” Indeed, while many companies feel that the best way to accommodate their customers is to provide a little bit of everything for everyone. This belief, according to Iyengar’s (2011) studies revealed the contrary. For example, in one of her experiments, customers were presented with six jams and twenty-four jams for tasting, although more customers stopped to taste the twenty-four jams, many did not buy a jar of jam. However, of those that did stop to taste the six jam options, (30%) more people bought a jar of jam. Overall, choice overload drastically affects consumers and decision makers’ engagement, decision quality and satisfaction (Iyengar, 2011).

Iyengar (2011) also provided four techniques to mitigate the choice overload problem in order to make decision making more productive. These techniques include the following:

1. Cut: The ability to cut or limit the amount of options which lends itself to the belief that less is more. By preventing the initial overload, we are better suited to evaluate more practical options.

2. Concretize: When making decisions, consumers must understand the differences in their choices by comprehending the consequences of such decisions.

3. Categorization: People are able to process categories more effectively as it relates to differences than in choosing options; only when such categories make sense to the choosers (consumers) oppose to the choice maker.

4. Condition for complexity: Consumers (decision makers) are better at making decisions that involve more complexity when lead into the process at a gradual pace. Such conditioning allows the consumer to prepare and build excitement for upcoming more complex decision choices.

In terms of my decision-making process, I find that I cut and concretize more often than not. For example, not long ago I was in the market for a good pair of every-day walking shoes. Due to on-going back and knee pain, I concluded that I was willing to sacrifice price for comfort. As I began researching the best pair, I had three requirements in mind: functionality, versatility, and durability. During my initial search, there were over a hundred-recommended pair of shoes. Thus, in an effort to limit (cut) the choices, I began using the search filters which eventually brought my search down to three pairs of shoes that fit my needs. It was at this point that I shifted to the concretization part of making the best decision. Of the three pairs options and specialization, I conducted a visualization exercise with each pairs pros and cons to give greater weight and life to my decision. At this point I narrowed my search to two pairs and visited a local shoes store with the two pairs so that I could touch and try out each. Ultimately, I settled for a Merrell hiking shoe that suited my requirements and needs. I was able to come to an educated and definitive decision from hundreds to one in a relatively short period of time because I unknowingly used two of Iyengar’s (2011) techniques of making choosing a more productive experience. Moreover, I also find myself using these methods in many other areas of my decision making. I believe it is important to know what decision needs to be made and why before considering a hundred different options. By knowing and understanding the decision that needs to be made, I have been able to automatically limit (cut) options that apply to a given situation rather than be overwhelmed with options that provide more “fairy dust” than functionality. It is also important to me when making decisions to reflect and visualize the decision, its immediate benefits, and the second & third orders of effect.

Reference

Iyengar, S. (2011). How to make choosing easier. TED.com. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose#t-810440. 

Multistage Decision-Making

A632.1.4.RB

Chapter 3 of the Wharton text discusses the power of everyday reasoning in multistage decision-making. The text discusses the way that researchers solve multistage problems through the application of formulas that provide the most significant chance of success. Critically think about your own decision-making process and reflect on the process you use compared to the process outlined in the article. Would this improve your decision-making? What would the impact be on forward planning? How would you apply optimal dynamic decision analysis to predict future impact of today's decision?

According to Hoch and Kumreuther (2005), “Decision making is essentially the process of accepting less of something to get more of something else.” Thus, we must use our reasoning skills and abilities to make decisions on a daily basis. Fortunately for us, many of these daily decisions revolve around trivial things such as: what we choose to wear, what flavor of coffee we want, or where we choose to eat for lunch. Yet, there are instances where we are faced with more complex decisions that require critical thinking and keen problem solving skills. Wharton discusses such a process that is used by researchers to solve multistate problems. While this process resembles a mathematical formula, its logical foundation is designed to provide a straightforward answer (Hoch and Kunreuther, 2005). Although this process may prove to be fruitful for researchers, I do not see myself using this method as I have never quite been comfortable with mathematically based formulas in any fashion.

By and large, I tend to use past experiences as a foundation to develop clarity of the issue, its causes, any assumptions and courses of action (COA). This process however, according to Wharton, has limited abilities as people are poor learners of the past; as well as having the limited ability of forward planning or myopia (Hoch and Humreuther, 2005). In general, I would agree with Wharton’s statement. However, there are institutions that develop systematic processes that take many of these factors into account in order to provide the best decision making process. For example, while in the service we used (at every level) the military decision making process (MDMP). As leaders, in a training environment, we conducted countless practical exercises and military planning operations that centered around MDMP. Furthermore, commanders (leaders) at the unit level would use MDMP for operations and staff development. “The military decision-making process (MDMP) is a single, established, and proven analytical process” (FM 101-5, 1997). MDMP consists of the following seven steps:

·       Step 1. Receipt of the Mission

·       Step 2. Mission Analysis

·       Step 3. Course of Action Development

·       Step 4: Course of Action Analysis

·       Step 5. Course of Action Comparison

·       Step 6. Course of Action Approval

·       Step 7. Order Production

Although there are seven steps, the process of mission analysis, COA developments and war gaming can go on for a few hours to a few weeks (size of mission dependent). In fact, the below figure provides the process and many of the inputs/outputs involved.

(FM 101-5, 1997)

As one can imagine, this process can be cumbersome, yet through years of application, its users can become very proficient. It forces its users to thoroughly analyze the issues, develop courses of action, and see the second and third orders of effect (future). In fact, many currently serving and prior service military members still use this process as a framework in their daily lives as it provides a systematic and analytical process that is time tested and proven when used properly. Although though I am two years removed from service, I still utilize this process for complex decisions in the civilian workforce.

I believe that decision making is both science and an art; it is a skill that requires objectivity, critical thinking, and an inherent need for information. This like any other skill also requires constant practice and feedback. By using a systematic process, one can see both the large picture and the smaller points of friction. In doing so, the decision maker is better prepared to make the best decision possible by using their reasoning process and judgement (experience).

References

FM 101-5. (1997). Staff Organization and Operations. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/FM-101-5_staff_organization_and_operations.pdf.

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition). Kendal edition.

Polyarchy Reflections

A633.9.3.RB

With the increase of uncertainty as a result of the dynamics that are prevalent in today’s globalization and technological advanced world, organizations need leaders and team members that are capable of making educated decisions in fluid environments that may be well beyond their comfort zone. In other words, yesterday’s oligarchical assumptions have out lived its intended use. Many of these traditional leadership models were developed in industries that enjoyed, to some degree, predictability and stability.

Exercising complex adaptive leadership is necessary more than ever as a result of the emergence of polyarchy. Being adaptive in thought and practice requires critical thinking and innovation that rarely exists in an oligarchy. Thus, when posed with the question of, “If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? I believe that an adaptive leader and practitioner would consider some benefit in many of these outdated models. For example, the 70-20-10 model for learning and development was created in the 1980s and was once held as a key developmental approach. However, with “The arrival of the Internet, and the current proliferation of online and mobile learning technologies, has altered the training industry’s views of the 70:20:10 model.  At the minimum, a growing chorus of training professionals contends that the aged model does not reflect the market’s fast-growing emphasis on informal learning” (Trainingindustry.com, 2016). Yet, this model still has a fundamental purpose as it incorporates three significant developmental components of leadership that include experience, interaction, and education. “One frequent observation is that while the model’s specific ratios do not reflect current learning opportunities, it remains generally consistent with the developmental experiences of many individuals. Thus, the model continues to serve as a valuable guideline on how to employ various developmental experiences” (Trainingindusty.com, 2016). Indeed, an adaptive leader would be able to adjust such a model while keeping to the concept to suit their organizational and developmental needs as their situation requires.

It is important for leaders to recognize and embrace change. As conditions and factors increase uncertainty, leaders must understand how and when to influence their followers and their situations. Obolensky (2014) identifies this state as wu wei, “a concept which can best be described as the art of inaction, acting without effort (such as going with the flow) or refraining from any action which is contrary to the underlying natural flow” (p. 8). A key element is to know and understand one followers and not merely view them as a means to an end. Thus, one of the most significant ways this has impacted me and will continue to affect me as a leader in the future is that “more control is not always a good thing” in a complex environment. With a military background, it would be easy to resort to what I have known and practiced for many years. However, it has become painfully clear that certain highly structure and efficient military practices do not bare the same fruit in all situations or organizations. Indeed, “The counter-intuitive conclusion is that the more complex things are, the less directive leadership should be used” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 109).

I believe that the MSLD program has and will continue to provide insight and enlightenment in many if not all facades of leadership. Specifically, in education and interaction with other leaders with diverse backgrounds and experiences. Unfortunately, since I do not belong to an organization as I am a full-time student, I will have to substitute key experience learning though coaching and mentorship. In an attempt to be adaptive in this situation, I will utilize all of the above with established subject matter experts in an effort to explore, build, and develop future strategies.

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Training Industry. (2016). The 70:20:10 Model for Learning and Development. Retrieved from https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/the-702010-model-for-learning-and-development.aspx.