A632.5.5.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

 In our reading, protected values (PV) are defined as values that are absolute and inviolable in which you are willing to accept trade-offs (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001).  We are unwilling to sacrifice these values for any financial or personal benefit.  My protected values revolve around humanitarian issues such as the environment and human and animal rights.  One great example of honoring one of my PV’s was when I used to work for a nonprofit that provided surgical care to children in developing countries.  Generally speaking, my entire team of doctors and nurses had a protected value to provide care to the poorest of the poor.  All of us shared this same value since our entire team was made up of volunteers who gave of their money and time to participate in these medical missions.  Yet, one of our greatest challenges was the lack of resources in these countries to perform these surgeries and most importantly, the resistance we sometimes met from government agencies and medical entities from these countries.  Ironically, our partners in these countries who supposedly shared these values with us, and on most occasions hosted our missions, were usually the first ones to stray from the protected values and make trade-offs. Most of the time this occurred if any kind of financial issue or expense was at stake.  The bottom line always being that, “yes” they wanted to help the children of their country, but “no”, they were not willing to contribute additional funding or participate in certain expenses. 

Another protected value that I notice does not always hold up for me or people who share this same value, is animal right’s issues.  I am extremely sensitive to the welfare of animals and am the first to voice my opinion on the inhumane treatment of animals. I’ve rescued many animals in my day, gave them homes, searched for homes for them and donated a lot of personal finances towards the cause.  Yet, the last 10 years I have become progressively allergic to all types of animals, but worst of all, cats.  I have still rescued cats, but more and more it becomes more difficult because of my allergies.  I used to just severely medicate myself with antihistamines, anti-inflammatory drugs, inhalers, etc. so that I could continue to rescue them but I have made the trade-off to not rescue cats because I no longer want to jeopardize my health with all of these chemicals and medicines.  My allergies with dogs also affect me and sometimes I will make the trade-off to not bring dogs to my house to avoid having symptoms and instead try and find other home for them or take them to a shelter when I find them.

At the end of the day I think you have to weigh out the degree of trade-offs.  I ask myself: is my health at risk? Can I financially afford to support my protected values? Am I harming someone else in the process?  I don’t think any value can really be set in stone because there is always the possibility of them getting tested and the risk of having to accept a trade-off.

There are various ways to address decision-making in a way to honor your protected values.  Some strategies are shaping the context of your decision, challenging protected values by asking about other conflicts, recognizing that zero tolerance of unprotected values is untenable, and lastly understanding the market value of those protected values (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001).  

 In my case, when trying negotiating with others, I try to put myself in their shoes and empathize with their values.  I feel that this type of behavior shows compassion and many times can sway the other party towards your decision because they see that you are willing to see all perspectives. 

References

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001).

Wharton on making decisions, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

A632.4.5.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Deception or misinterpretation during negotiations is quite common as a way of gaining advantage (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001).  Hoch et. al. (2001) describe two types of lies, lies of omission and lies of commission.  Lies of commission tend to be more condemnable than those of omission.  There are four ways in which information can be misinterpreted according to Hoch et. al. (2001).  The first, Reservation Prices, is highly misguiding since many times what negotiating partners claim as their reservation price, many times could be lower then what they claim.  This is easily seen in supermarket mark downs.  Items are advertised as “on sale” when in effective, the price has really gone from a mark-up to its standard price, manipulating the customer into thinking there is a discount when there isn’t.  The second misrepresentation of information that can be evaluated is Interests.  In this case a negotiator may pretend they do not share the same interests as their negotiating partner as a ways of asking for extra concessions.  During my negotiations with the real estate agent when I tried to get the rent price lowered, we both misrepresented our interests. The real estate agent claimed that the owner of the apartment was not in a hurry to rent the apartment because he really didn’t need the money.  I in turn told the agent that I was not in a hurry to find a place and would be willing to wait for something cheaper.  Both she and I had a mutual interest for me to move into the apartment as quickly as possible but were negotiating for extra concessions.  I waited to pay less for example.  The third misinterpretation that is mentioned is Intentions.  Going back to my example when dealing with the real estate agent for my apartment,  the real estate agent misrepresented information regarding how many people were looking at the apartment.  This is a common tactic used by real estate agents.  When I tried to negotiate the price and verbalized my intent to wait or search for a cheaper apartment, she told me that there were other people lined up that had an interest in the apartment and it would be rented by the next day if I didn’t take it. This was her way of trying to get me to concede to the original price. A few days later she contacted me and told me the owner would consider dropping the price if I was still interested.  The last misrepresentation that can be used is Material Facts.  This is probably one of the most serious misleading information as the negotiator is bluntly lying about the facts.   I have encountered this type of misrepresentation of information when shopping on Amazon and a seller gives erroneous information about the product.

One example of overstating a claim could clearly be seen on my resume.  During my younger years when I had little work experience I would sometimes over exaggerate my talents or completely lie about my skill levels in order to get employment.  I am a very fast learner and in some instances was sure that I would be able to do the job yet I also recognized that if I didn’t have the job experience they were looking for, they wouldn’t give my resume a second look.  In this case I weighed out the cost and benefit of my deception realizing that the benefit outweighed the possible cost (getting caught for example) and also justify my deception by recognizing my quick learning curve (Hoch et. al., 2001) .

I consider myself to be a very honest person and I hold others to the same ethical standard.  I am okay with white lies but my standard for lying or misrepresenting information is based on the following guideline which is harming no one.  If my deception does not harm anyone physically, emotionally or mentally, I think it is acceptable.

References

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

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.