A632.3.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Frame blindness can happen when one is not aware of their frames causing a risk to the decision-making process (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001).  Hoch et. al. (2001) describe methods in which you can become aware and understand your frames and three key steps in taking control of your frames.   

The first method is to “frame by conducting a frame audit” (p. 142).  This is done by surfacing your frames and the best way is by visually presenting them.  For example, when trying to figure out my expenses, I find it difficult to mentally categorize and prioritize my expenses to better control my funds and extend my financial spending.  To help me ‘surface my frames’ I create excel sheets and even graphs that provide me with visual information.  This helps me to see the categories that I might have missed or even alternatives to how I spend my money.  “Understanding the frames of others” (Hoch. Et. al., 2001, p. 142)  is a process of examination that helps you become more aware of other people’s frames and by this way have a clearer view of any “frame overlap and conflict” (p. 142).  In my organization we have many departments working towards assisting students in achieving their education.  All of these departments overlap in some way since in the end there is a common goal.  But, I have experienced a myopic perspective in some cases when my views have been completely different from another department.  For example, as a small satellite campus for Embry-Riddle, my main concern and focus are my students.  Sometimes, in an effort to assist them and stand by their side, I sometimes forget or even challenge certain university policies that exist for the better good of the organization.  Our regular regional townhall meetings allow our leadership team to remind us all of our roles as well as our responsibilities to the entity that is the university.  Hoch et al. tell us that “as people specialize in functions and departments, they often lose sight of the big picture and what really matters to the company” (2001, p. 146).  ).  Also, it is important to appreciate any new and emerging frames.  See how other’s frame and be open to new perspectives can sometimes “illuminate something that your frame keeps you from perceiving” (p. 146).  

Another key step to taking control over your frames is to identify and change your frames.  Identification means analyzing whether or not they are effective, observe whether or not they are flawed, question your reference points, and pinpointing any common assumptions that seem to dictate your organization’s thinking (Hoch et al., 2001).  In my role I am always analyzing the processes I use to make decisions and to organize my labor to see if they are effective or flawed.  I try to understand where my thinking is coming from and where it is going.  I tend to think outside of the box and therefore try think on more holistic terms.  To identify common assumptions I like to dialogue with colleagues from other campuses to see how we synchronize or where we differ and from their frames try to gain new perspectives.

The last step is “mastering techniques for reframing” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 148).  Learning how to create and experiment with new frames, synthesize them and also make comparisons by trying out new environments is an effective way of reframing.  Some techniques would include: using alternative images, challenging other people’s reference points, stretching the view of the frame, creating new frames, aligning frames, using multiple frames, and speaking the “frame” language of other individuals.  In my experience, the best way to avoid frame traps is by reframing them by using some of these techniques.  I for example try to speak the same frame language as those people who I am aiming to convince or trying to win over.  When working with students who I feel are not making good choices, I try to synchronize with their view of the world and see the frames from which they are looking out of.  A 20 year old sailor straight out of high school will be using different frames when deciding to  start an education then a 40 year old sailor close to retirement.  In these instances reframing is a critical process when trying to make decisions or convince others of decisions that should be made.

The exercises in our reading have taught me how complex the decision-making process can be and how important it is to generate an awareness of our own frames as well as those of others.  This process of awareness will help us to avoid myopic perspectives and assist us in expanding our awareness of options, alternatives and innovations that are available to us.

On a personal level, I think that questioning my reference point or doing a “reference point analysis” would have been beneficial and may have changed the direction of my education.  I chose to study education even though my heart was in art.  I look back now and realize that the origin and reference of my frame at that time was my mother and specifically, a deep desire to please her.  If I would have had the understanding of frames back then, I may have been able to analyze why I was making this decision and decide how effective and gratifying it would be in the future.  

I don’t believe there is a lot of risk in reframing.  I believe that multiple avenues and perspectives is always a superior way to arrive to a conclusion as it broadens the options and also allows for more reflective thought.  This exercise has demonstrated to me that as open and receptive as I am to change, I still am very loyal to my personal frames and sometimes have difficulty in understanding or relating to other people’s frames. I need to be more open and willing to synchronize my frames with others and also allow others to influence how I frame certain experiences or decisions.

References

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

A632.2.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Contrary to what we would think, Iyengar’s study actually shows that people are less likely to consume when given too many choices (Iyengar, 2011).  In her TedTalk she tells us about four different methodologies that can help us improve our experience of choosing.  She proposes Cut, Concretization, Categorization, and Condition for Complexity.  Cut is the concept that less is more.  The less choices the more people will actually spend.  Iyengar explains that too many choices can seem overwhelming, she tells us “we can't actually do the math of comparing and contrasting and actually picking…” (Iyengar, 2011).  Concretization is being able to not only see the differences between all the choices but also realistically understand and perceive the consequences of these choices. Categorization is the idea that it’s easier to choose when there are many categories as opposed to many choices.  The last technique is Condition for Complexity.  The idea here is that we can handle a lot of information but it needs to be bite size and given to us incrementally from easier to more complex.  

I definitely have to agree with Iyengar when she tells us that less is more.  I personally feel extremely overwhelmed when given too many choices.  An excellent example of this is when I go to restaurants to have a short and concise menu and one that is a 10 page book of food choices.  I have a harder time deciding what to eat and end up ordering something that isn’t satisfying or choosing something that I don’t even like.  One of my favorite restaurants is an Italian restaurant that has a two page menu with only about 10 items.  Then they offer a few different specials each night.  My dining experience at this place is always optimal and satisfying.  One would say that it would get boring eating at this restaurant yet I find the experience to be novel and amazing every time.

Another technique that I feel assists me in choosing easier and better is Condition for Complexity.  I love to shop at Zappo’s for athletic shoes.  One of the main reasons is because of how well they filter the shopping experience.  There have been some shopping sites that I have used that just offer you the different name brands.  You then have to sift through pages and pages of Nikes, or New Balance trying to find the shoe that fits your needs.  I remember always feeling extremely overwhelmed by this process and then having to navigate to a secondary page to make comparisons. The entire experience was cumbersome and confusing and most often I would not make a purchase with the idea that I would look at the site another day.  Zappo’s on the other hand conditions for complexity.  One way is their many filters.  When you shop on Zappo’s for shoes you filter first by gender then by size.  Then you can filter to choose by type (running, hiking, cross-training, etc.) and then by brand.  Finally you can filter down to style and color.  This is a prime example of taking something that has a plethora of choices and simplifying the process into bite-size decisions that I have to make. 

References

Iyengar, S. (2011, November). How to make choosing easier [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

A632.1.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

I have received a lot of training in the disciplines of yoga and reiki.  For those of you that are not familiar with these types of practices, they are millenarian practices that incorporate the use of intuition as an effective way of working with the energy of the body.  Through these practices I’ve learned to become more self-aware of that “gut-feeling” and to listen to the subtle messages from my subconscious.  Hoch, Kunreuther and Gunther (2001, p. 39) discuss how “cognitive abilities are poorly equipped to solve complex dynamic-optimization problems” and explain that sometimes our intuitive guesses can be on target.  But they also warn that a good manager must know when to trust our intuitive process and when to “cede the stage f the formal mathematical tools available from decision analysts and in decision-support software (p. 40).  

One of the things I do try to do when making decisions is to become fully aware of all of my options and the consequences of each option.  When making a decision I try to use a combination of rational thinking along with intuitive thought. One thing that I have learned through this class on decision making is the importance of an awareness of the decision-making process.  Although I like to rely highly on my intuitive nature, Hoch et. al. explain how “a systematic approach can help avoid imprecision in the decision process” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 3).   One such approach is what Hoch et. al. (2001, p. 3) call dynamic programming which is “a process for solving multistage decision problems”.  The theory here is that one can solve a complex problem by breaking it up into stages and by solving the problem starting from the last stage and moving backwards towards the first stage.  This is what they call “backward induction”.  This would be similar to how you would try to strategize in a chess came by trying to “see” forward into the future to “to the end game when you consider your opening moves”.  This type of forward thinking is something that I am not accustomed to doing in my own decision-making process.  Because I rely highly on my intuitive nature, I rarely am looking into the future but instead basing decisions on a more automated process that pulls from my past knowledge and experiences.  In fact, Hoc et. al. explain our human limitations or what they describe a myopia or limit to forward planning (Hoch et al., 2001).  I am definitely guilty of this type of limited forward planning.  Part of it is related to pure laziness especially when dealing with complex problems.  The stress related to problem-solving is enough to make it cumbersome to try and look into the future.  That mixed with my natural impatient and impulsive nature make it difficult for me to have that kind of foresight.  

In conclusion I think as I mentioned earlier a combination of forward future planning and intuitive thinking with the used of dynamic decision analysis tools and resources would be a complete strategy for decision-making processes in the future.

References

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

A642.5.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

        Sunstein and Hastie talk about the dangers of “groupthink” in their article and how to avoid these pitfalls (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014). They explain that groups make errors for two main reasons.  The first reason is called informational signals, which involves members receiving the wrong signals from each other.  The second error is reputational pressures, which is when members feel pressured into silencing themselves or changing their views to avoid disapproval.  These errors, according to Sunstein and Hastie (2014), are that it can cause self-destructive decisions.  The errors can be amplified instead of corrected.  They can fall victim to a cascading effect, following actions of leading members blindly.  They can polarize their decisions.  And lastly, erroneously focus on common information instead of innovative information.  These are all examples of how groups become dumber and can heavily influence each other into bad decisions or avoid innovation all together. 

In order for groups to become “wiser” they need to make sure they are aggregating the information of their members and avoid the information signals and reputational pressures.  Sunstein and Hastie (2014) suggest six ways where this can be achieved.  The first way is Silencing the Leader.  Leaders can promote openness of opinions first by allowing other members to express their ideas first.  Sometimes leaders or high status members of the group can intimidate lower status members when they express their ideas first, blocking these members from sharing their ideas.  By allowing other members to openly express their opinions first, I believe it allows for more creativity and sharing of information on a more diverse level.  Another way to encourage positive group decisions is to “Prime” Critical Thinking.  Leaders should encourage members to share information.  This can be done by encourage members to get along with each other through various tasks or encouraging members to disclose information early on.  A third tactic is to Reward Group Success.  “Identification with the group’s success is more

likely to ensure that people will say what they know, regardless of whether it fits “the party line” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, p. 98).  I have witnessed this during conferences where individuals are more likely to contribute and disclose when they feel involved and rewarded for participating in a group decision.  A third way to achieve group cohesion is through Assigning Roles.  This is a great way to encourage group members to contribute especially if they know before-hand that they have been chosen to disclose specific information based on their expertise.  Appointing A Devil’s Advocate ensures that dominate positions do not lead the group decision.  This also helps group members to share contrary ideas and promote diversity of thought.  A similar strategy to appointing a devil’s advocate is Establish Contrarian Teams which similarly creates an environment where conformity is challenged.  The last strategy that Sunstein and Hastie suggest is the Delphi Method which is a series of voting based on estimation. A simpler version of this would be “a system in which ultimate judgments or votes are given anonymously but only

after deliberation”.  This would seem to be a more democratic approach to innovative decision-making.   

            McKeown states that “habit will avoid change” (McKeown, 2014, Part 4, section 1).  This is another example of how group thinking can affect how a team innovates.  Sometimes as a group, it’s easier to fall back on information that is comfortable and mainstream then try to break away from the norm.  He goes on to say that “it is commonplace for the newest to be ignored or imperfect” (Part 4, Section 2).  A challenge for groups and teams are to avoid the kinds of pitfalls that can cause members to fall into unproductive synchronous thinking.  Good smart ideas can sometimes get lost in what McKeown (2014) terms as “dumb processes”.

            I believe you can combine the concepts from McKeown’s book and the methods suggested by Sunstein and Hastie.  McKeown (2014) explains that you can win through an innovation process as long as you keep your ideas useful and popular in the real world.  He explains this is done by adapting to the environment as an organization.  Sunstein and Hastie explain the importance of  cohesiveness between members of a group to avoid pitfalls that can cause bad decision-making.  In simplest terms, there must be a level of synergy not only amongst the innovation team, but also between the team and those users who will benefit from the product or service.  It is a holistic approach to innovation that suggests that innovation may start in the mind of one, but to expand that kind of creative energy outwards involves a process of comprehension and understanding between members and the ability to adapt and change when needed.

References

McKeown, M. (2014). The innovation book [Kindle Version].  Retrieved from Amazon.com

Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2014). Making dumb groups smarter. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 91-98.