Role of Emotions in Decision Making

A632.9.3.RB

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.

To envision a leader without emotion can be a difficult task. In fact, as we think out who we believe were/are effective leaders, many if not all had some form of passion and energy that was contagious to their followers. Such emotion is important as Professor Baba Shiv (2011) discusses in this week’s assignment. Prof. Shiv noted the importance of evoking emotions in decision making as it has an essential impact on others and their behavior. According to Prof. Shiv (2011), there are three significant benefits to include emotions in decision making:

1) Passion is very persuasive.

2) Confidence is very contagious.

3) The extraction of the utility from the experience.

The fist example of when I became very passionate and confident as a result of decision making occurred while as a cadet in the Army ROTC. Prior to taking part in the ROTC program, I spent the majority of my time and energy getting stronger and faster for football and wrestling. Believing that my athleticism, strength, and explosiveness would help me be a good fit in the program, I learned quickly that those particular characteristics we not suited in a profession that required endurance and mental agility. Thus, guys half my size were out performing me in many aspects. I came to the conclusion that I needed to adjust my frame of mind and decided to focus more time and energy with endurance activities over holiday break in preparation from the following semesters physical training (PT) test. I put in countless hours training, running distance, and hills. When the new semester began, as a program, we conducted a PT test to see where everyone was at in fitness. Needless to say, physical fitness is an essential ingredient as an effective military leader. Going into the PT test I felt extremely confident in my ability to reach a perfect score (300 points). After completing the three events of: push-ups, sit-ups, and 2 mile run; I accomplished my goal of reaching a perfect score. Coming in as a bulky football play to becoming a physically fit in the eyes of the military, others cadets noted they felt there was hope for them. Furthermore, my efforts also demonstrated to my instructors that I was ready for increased responsibility and leadership positions.

The other example in which passion and confidence was lacking occurred while I was deployed and serving as an Iraqi Police Transition Team (PTT) Chief. At the time, there was a big effort to get Iraqi police stations (IPS) up and running with training and equipment in order to increase stability and local security. One of our main challenges was the complete lack of accountability Iraqi police leadership would place on equipment, weapons, and ammo. Wanting the police stations to be successful, my PTT leaders (US Soldiers) and I spent a significant amount of time working with the police leadership on tracking, accountability, and logistics in general. Of course, these efforts were communicated in my weekly/monthly assessments. However, at one point, we received notification that there was a massive shipment of equipment (from coalition forces) that would be used to complete fill each Iraqi police stations shortages. Initially we expressed the need for such equipment, weapons, and ammo, but that the systems involved in maintaining, tracking, and accounting for it was none existent. Long story short, we voiced our concerns about the likelihood of this equipment disappearing, but were nevertheless directed to ensure the equipment was delivered to the IPS. As dutiful Soldiers, we ensured that the task was successfully accomplished. However, as a result of the lack of passion and confidence, this did not feel like the “win” we were working hard for. In fact, this event although successful, felt more like a step backwards emotionally.

Reference

Shiv, B. (2011). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making. Stanford University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc. 

Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

A632.8.3.RB

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.

Leaders must process countless inputs and factors which affect how they make decisions in a given situation. In fact, one would expect to associate critical thinking as an important process to skillfully analyze, evaluate, and identify a suitable solution. According to Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (1987) “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action” (as cited in CriticalThinking.org, 2015).

Indeed, a guide or an analytical process is essential to properly diagnosing a situation and choosing the most appropriate method to address the dynamics involved. Enter the Cynefin Framework, which means place or habitat. Initially developed in 1999 by scholar David Snowden, this framework is a sense-making model verses a traditional categorization model. As such, this framework assists its users to accurately evaluate their situation(s) and responded appropriately using a domain specific decision model (see below figure).

Now that I am retired from military service, the majority of my decision-making falls into the Simple domain. Thus, applying the decision model of Sense – Categorize – Respond requires minimal effort and critical thinking. For example, structure and routine help sort many of the possible friction points around our household. Should we sense a disruption with established routines, such as a last minute school/work event, we can very quickly recover with minimal overall disruption.

Yet there are occasions which forces me to reassess my position (Disorder domain). For instance, our family is in the process of PCSing (military move) and have to make important decision in our current location and at the location we plan to move to. One important decision that my wife and I need to make is finding a school for out seven year old in the new city we will be moving to. Where this somewhat complicated decision transverses into the complex decision is the definition and quality of a “good school” we both have. By and large, we share the same beliefs suitable academic standards, yet when tuition and school districts enter the consideration, the complicated just got complex. Needless to say, in an attempt to mitigate the resulting aftermath, we have enlisted the help of trusted sources for both schools and districts. In essences, we are in the process of Probe – Sense – Respond, attempting to set the conditions for an emergent solution.

I believe that the Cynefin Framework is an important tool in that it guides the user during the assessment and approach process. This process is only productive when leaders are willing to be open to change and accepting of other context. According to Snowden and Boone (2007), “Good leadership requires openness to change on an individual level. Truly adept leaders will know not only how to identify the context they’re working in at any given time but also how to change their behavior and their decisions to match that context.” Thus, as leaders, we must be adaptive and willing to work within context outside of our comfort zones. I also believe this framework will not only improve my decision-making abilities, but those of other leaders by expanding one’s perception, having the ability to see other context and move between them, and feel more at-ease with working through complexity. “It helps you avoid using the same management style or decision-making approach in all situations – a mistake that can be costly to your team or organization– by encouraging you to be flexible and adaptable when making decisions, and to adjust your management style to fit your circumstances.” (Mind Tools, n.d.).  

References

Defining Critical Thinking. (2015). CriticalThinking,Org. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.

The Cynefin Framework. (n.d.) MindTools.com. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/cynefin-framework.htm.

Snowden, D. and Boone, M. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making.   

Cynefin Framework Reflection

A632.8.4.RB

Based upon the above video on Cynefin Framework, reflect on the 3 ways each quadrant of the Cynefin Framework can facilitate decision-making using examples from your own experience.

The Cynefin Framework is sense-making model that allows its users to analytically process events depending on the dynamics involved. In essence, this framework is a decision-making model that provides various methods for leaders to evaluate their situation and begin sourcing the appropriate action. According to Dave Snowden (2010):

So the Cynefin Framework is a decision framework, it’s an analytical framework. It’s been used for decision theory, it’s been used for knowledge management, it’s been used for IT design, for project management because it recognizes the causal differences that exists between different types of systems and give people a very quick and easy way to flip between them so they can use the appropriate method for the appropriate domain (7:45).

The Cynefin Framework consists of the following five domains (Snowden, 2010):

1) Simple Domain: In this domain, the relationship between cause and effect is discernable and predictable. Moreover, this is an ordered system lending itself to the decision model of Sense – Categorize – Respond. For this domain, Best Practices are created.

2) Complicated Domain: Although an ordered system, the relationship for cause and effect in not evident and may have multiple right answers, which requires expert knowledge. Thus, the decision model for this domain is Sense – Analyze – Respond. For this domain, Good Practices are created.

3) Complex Domain: This system does not have an obvious relationship between cause and effect (only in hindsight). Thus, the decision model is in this domain is Probe – Sense – Respond. As result of experiments in this domain, Emergent order begins to transpire.

4) Chaotic Domain: In this domain, cause and effect cannot be determined, yet leaders must attempt to stabilize quickly in order to shift the situation into the complex domain. The decision model in this domain is Act – Sense – Respond. For this domain, Novel Practice is created.

5) Disorder Domain: This domain involves the state of not knowing. Thus, leaders assess the situation and the associated dynamic in order to identify what domain they are in. The assessment process, Snowden (2010) tells us that the problem in this domain is that we determine our situation as a result of personal preference for action.

The Cynefin Framework is a very useful tool for making decision in that it provides various context to evaluate a situation. While I was in the service, I typically made decision that spanned the complicated and complex domains. In the military, the simple domain is usually addressed and mitigated with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Nevertheless, there are instances where a “ball was dropped” and remedial action is focused more on the personal failure oppose to the procedural side. When making decisions in the complicated domain, I typically relied on subject matter experts (SMEs) I had access to. For example, as an organizational leader that is responsible for the family readiness group (FRG), I had little experience with event planning and it was out of my comfort zone. Thus, I brought in a spouse that had unique experience with planning and arranging large social events and she essentially established a good practice for the organization.

When entering the complex and chaotic domains, typically I rely on action and assessment of the situation. Action in the sense of mitigating damage or loss of resources or life, yet doing my best to assess where the biggest threat is originating from and what else lies in its path. Although Snowden (2010) clearly tells us that finding a relationship between cause and effect is futile, as leaders we must stabilize the situation enough to properly select the most appropriate method of working through the complex and chaotic situation. Such situations in my field (background) included terror attacks, security breaches, active shooters, and combative individuals to name a few. All situations in which can transition from one domain to the other in a split second.

I agree with Snowden (2010) that we as leaders (decision makers), we spend that majority of our time in the disorder domain. In fact, we apply significant effort in evaluating and assessing our surroundings, situational developments, and on-going factors (dynamics) in order to identify what domain we are actually in. Furthermore, I believe that this evaluation is heavily dependent on our personal preferences as Snowden (2010) explains. For example, I believe that we as leaders over time develop certain approaches that are based on previous experiences that may not apply. Therefore, its important for leaders to be able to expand their evaluation of context and explore new courses of action as prescribed in each domain. 

Reference

Snowden, D. (2010). The Cynefin Framework. Cognitive Edge. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8. 

Collaborative Decision Making

A632.7.3.RB

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?

Collaborative decision making is an important process that involves multiple stakeholders that contribute to the group’s overall success in many ways, such as an expertise and experience to name a few. Anthony Tisdall (2013), notes the some of the benefits as a result of collaborative decision making:

·       Sharing information leads to better decisions

·       Common situational awareness levels the playing field

·       Diverse stakeholders lead to increased knowledge and understanding

·       Building relationships, builds trust

·       Jointly developed tools and procedures allow stakeholders to quickly adapt in changing environments

It is essential that when forming a group of stakeholders for collaborative decision making that careful thought is given to who is participating (if discretion is available) and the conditions surrounding the group. Many of these factors will establish the tone and set the foundation for the group dynamics and success. In fact, Stuart Easton (2015) provides the following characteristics of what can potentially lead to a “Good” or “Bad” group:

Good group:

·       Clear goals

·       Clear communication

·       Good process and tools

·       Knowledgeable people

·       Collaboration

·       Good executive support

Bad group:

·       Be highly politicized

·       Poorly defined goals

·       No common understanding or communication of the goals

·       Poor group dynamics (e.g. political point-scoring, group think, etc.)

·       No clear process for making a decision and no tools to support consensus building

·       Ambiguous or weak executive sponsorship

While working for a state office as an inspector supervisor, I was tasked by the director to create a plan for training site inspections that spanned the entire state of TN and would last approximately six weeks. Thus, after sitting down with the director where she essentially provided her intent and vision of what she wanted to accomplish. I believe this was a vital step towards our team’s success because it was the starting point that set the conditions for the group I needed to form for the collaborative decision making process. Levine (2009) highlights that, “With intent and a specific vision, you quickly begin thinking about the result you want—the big picture of the resolution or collaboration, as well as a specific picture of what you want to create together (p. 179).

Due to the number of sites that needed to be inspected, the logistics involved, and the cooperation required from all the training providers; I established a group that consisted of subject matter experts (SMEs/stakeholders) that could discuss in detail many of the key considerations/factors involved, such as: what was to be inspected, the time involved in conducting multiple inspections per day per area, and moving a group of inspectors from one location to another.

Over the course of three weeks, the group was able to solidify a plan that would meet the director’s intent and vision within the parameters provided. I believe the collaborative decision making process in this case was effective because of the initial clear guidance and intent, the trust each stakeholder had in each other, but most importantly, the unified effort to accomplish a challenging operation.

References

Easton, S. (2015). Successful Collaborative Decision Making. Transparent Choice. Retrieved from https://blog.transparentchoice.com/strategic-decision-making-in-a-team-its-about-good-people-process-and-software-to-improve-your-decisions.

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. Berrett-Koehler. Kindle Edition.

Tisdall, A. (2013). Collaborative Decision Making. ICAO. Retrieved from http://www1.atmb.net.cn/CD_web/UploadFile/2013122416074950.pdf.