A632.8.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Problem solving within multiple contexts requires good critical thinking skills and good perspective.  To be able to move between a simple, complex, complicated and chaotic context takes skill and good-decision making skills. “Effective leaders learn to shift their decision-making styles to match changing business environments” (Snowden & Boone, 2007).   

 One great example of moving and responding within multiple contexts is when I worked for a nonprofit called International Hospital for Children.  Those of us working on these medical missions, found ourselves bouncing around in different contexts, depending on the situation.  First there was the simple context.  This was the routine interviews with  patients and their families, collecting information and categorizing each child depending on their degree of severity.  This is how we decided who got surgery now and who had to wait until our next mission.  Once all the data was collected we moved into the complicated context.  The data needed to be analyzed.  Here is where the expertise of the surgeons and nurses came in.  There were several options and surgeries available.  Based on the interviews and data we decided what kind of surgery, when and what resources were needed.  The situation many times slipped into the complex context.  Children with multiple problems, or serious illnesses or unidentifiable symptoms required further analysis and interpretation.  Their health history was probed, backgrounds were researched and other entities needed to be brought into the decision-making process such as our partnering clinic, government officials and sometimes even other specialist.  All parties needed to communicate well and a well thought out response to the issue needed to be made.  When surgeries went bad or there were complications, the situation could go from complex or complicated to chaotic.  This was the “life or death” decision-making process that needed to be made in the moment and with a top-down control.  Our surgeons being the ones with the expertise in these situations had the last say and the rest of us just followed suit.

When looking back at this experience, I can see how we reached a decision in each context.  During the initial assessment of the patients, it was easy to make decisions since everything was based on straight-forward medical records and data.  When it came time to choose the best candidates for surgery, the complicated context, we used a general assessment process based on a list of questions and standard criteria for each type of surgery.  When and if there were complications during the surgery, the complex context, our surgeons had to become creative.  For example, prior to a brain surgery, the electric drill they were using stopped working, we had limited resources, so we sent someone out to secure an orthodontist hand drill that could drill through bone and the surgeons were able to conduct the surgery.  They needed to use their creative skills.  Lastly, when the situation went chaotic, we had to consider the fastest course of action which was to leave it to the experts, our surgeons.  They had to make decisions on the spot without consulting anyone and only basing it on their life experiences and training.

I feel that the Cynefin Framework provides an improved context for decision-making because it provides guidelines and boundaries for different situations.  First, knowing which context you are in will also alert you to the danger signs attributed to that context.  Second, we have some clear guidelines on how to respond depending on the context.  Third, seeing problems through the Cynefin Framework provides a better visual of the problem at hand and how it can deescalate or escalate, allowing us to prepare for change.  Fourth, the framework provides structure to the decision-making process which can assist in situations of doubt. Lastly, the framework is a reminder of how easily things can spiral out of control and how we need to be prepared for anything.  We cannot remain complacent because we live in an ever changing dynamic environment. As Snowden and Boone tell us "good leadership is not a one-size-fits-all proposition" (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

References

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making/

A632.7.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

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?

Making a decisions, especially if it is something that impacts your life, or is of great value to you, is not something that should be done alone even if the final decision falls on you.  I believe most of us seek out the opinions and advice of other people when trying to make a decision.  Planning my wedding for example was something that required a lot of collaboration from a lot of people.  The stakeholders being my husband to be at the time and my family played a huge role in the final outcome.  

For example, the guest list alone was something that needed to be collaborated.  Even though it was my wedding, everyone involved felt they had a say in who was invited and who wasn’t.  There were conflicts, for example with my mother who wanted to invite family members who I did not even know, yet she felt it was the political thing to do since they were part of her family.  These resolutions were reached through compassionate dialogue, disclosure and listening.  Levine (2009) tells us that “full disclosure is evidence of a good-faith effort to work together toward resolution” (p. 96).  She made me understand that although it may not seem important to me, having them at my wedding was important to her.  I wanted my mom to be happy, and I also understood that she wanted to share this proud moment with her family.  We came to an easy agreement because I was willing to listen to her needs.  

The other stakeholders in my wedding were other members of my family and especially close friends.  Everyone had an emotionally vested interest in my wedding as I believe they all wanted me to be happy but also, they wanted to enjoy the event as well.  In planning the food and drinks, it was important for me to collaborate with my friends and the best man.  There was conflict with the best man because he felt that there were certain elements needed in regards to the bar.  He insisted that an open bar was important and it would make our guests happier, but we felt that it was way out of our budget.  Because he was also our lawyer, he was used to an attitude of “winning” and debated this mercilessly.  We had requested his help in organizing our wedding and he was unwilling to see our side of things and felt ownership over the process.  We didn’t want to upset him since he was offering his help voluntarily and out of the kindness of his heart.  Levine (2009) tells us that the challenge is to “let go of ego concerns” (p. 56) which was the most difficult part of the conflict for him.  During this conflict we used one of Levine’s principles of new thinking which was becoming open.  We sat down with the best man and had a heart to heart, explaining our budget and concerns but all within the context of our love and respect for him.  We entered into what Levine calls the “truth circle” and were able to open his eyes to our perspective.  A generous compromise was reached where an open bar was offered but for a limited time.

Stakeholders can assist in the decision-making process in many ways.  They can act as mediators helping those involved to openly communicate with each other.  Not only as the job of a referee but also as a vested individual in the situation.  Stakeholders can tell their stories and begin a domino effect in which each person in the group feels more comfortable to divulge their feelings and concerns.  Stakeholders can add new perspective and allow you to see another angle of the situation.  They can help you avoid that myoptic view and look at the conflict more holistically.  Stakeholders can also act as a resource, contributing their skills and experiences to the situation.  Lastly, they can add to the creative process.

Returning to my wedding, I feel that the collaboration of my family and friends did help me gain my objective which was to have a successful and happy wedding.  The fact that everyone was willing to listen put us all on a path to learning about each other and learning how to work with each other.  Levine explains that the process of learning lets you “discover, explore, and learn with everyone else what the best solution is” (2009, p. 98).  Coming into the planning of the wedding everyone had an expectation of what it was supposed to be like and how it should be planned.  The key was to align the expectations of each person with a common vision.  I believe we were able to achieve this objective.  

Looking back I think that we had a generous amount of opinions and views to make the wedding a dynamic and fulfilling event.  Although there could have been other stakeholders that might have been able to add to the process, I think generally speaking the essential parts were covered.  However, I do feel there could have been improvements in how some decisions were made.  First of all, I think that a preliminary vision could have been set forth by the bride and groom in the beginning.  Seeing that the wedding was ours and we had a higher vested interest in the outcome, a set preliminary vision could have at least set a standard for all the stakeholders to follow.  I think a brainstorming session before the planning with everyone involved would have been beneficial.  At my wedding we never actually sat down in a meeting with all the people who would be involved in the planning process and instead met with each person individually.  A group meeting, or set of meetings would have allowed all of us to share ideas and stories and listen to each person’s perspective.  

Levine’s cycle of conflict resolution does provide an excellent roadmap for resolving conflict and assisting in problem-solving experiences.  This is an excellent tool that can be used for wedding-planning or any other planning that is highly personal and emotional by nature. 

References

 

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

 

A632.6.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Years back an old boyfriend and I decided to open up an art gallery together.  We had different viewpoints on how the business should be run and different business attitudes.  His attitude as the “artist” was more generous and laissez faire where I thought it very important to be involved in the business and with the artist that we showcased.  We fought continuously about the future of the gallery because our ideas and attitudes collided.  To begin with, the gallery required some money upfront, which at the time was a significant amount for two recent college graduates.  There were also many physical and personal resources that were needed to run the gallery.  We were both very set in our ways and neither of us wanted to back down from our ideals.  Eventually our inability to resolve this conflict resulted in the closing of the gallery.  Levine (cite) mentions four cost of conflict that are the result of unresolved conflicts.  The first one is direct cost.  Our gallery had a direct cost because we lost the money that we had primarily invested in the gallery plus outstanding costs that had to be paid to artists that were left out in the cold who we had contracted to show in our space.  The second cost of conflict is what he calls productivity cost or lost time.  Obviously because we could not resolve our conflict, we were not able to continue showcasing artists.  Our gallery had begun to receive some recognition and we were on a path of expanding our artist showcase.  The third cost of conflict is continuity cost.  Because we were unable to resolve our differences in business management, we ended up severing our personal relationship as well which caused many other direct costs due to the fact that we lived together.  Lastly, Levine mentions the emotional cost involved which in our case was destructive.  I not only lost a business partner but my best friend and boyfriend.  

Looking back, if I would have had access to the resources I do now and known about Levine’s (2009) Ten Principles of New Thinking, I may have addressed our conflicts in a different way.  Levine describes an old way of thinking and contrasts it with a new way of thinking.  For example, the idea of scarcity is something that any business owner fears.  However, over the years, I have learned to believe in abundance and that lack, or the idea of lack, is only in the mind.  During my conflict over the gallery I was also always very concerned with losing resources.  Levine tells us that we need to flip the switch and think of it as creating partnerships instead.  Everyone knows that two heads are always better than one.  I know for a fact that I have had far greater successes in my life when I have teamed up with people.  Along with more creative partnerships it is also important to foster sustainable collaboration.  Again, working in collaborative teams renders higher results.  Some of the other principles that Levine mentions are transforming negative feelings into creativity and being open with our emotions.  It is impossible to run a business if you do not share your feelings.  With my boyfriend we would get upset with each other because of assumptions we made regarding what the other person was feeling instead of clarifying exactly what we wanted. We could have avoided a lot of miscommunication this way.  

Lastly, I always tried to reach a consensus or decision using logic and trying to revert to traditional business models. My boyfriend, being very creative and intuitive, always suggested we try other new ways of doing things.  And although I liked his ideas, I was afraid to make the plunge because my life savings was involved.  Looking back, I am sure we could have reached a middle ground if we made a stronger effort to resolve our differences.  

I definitely believe that we could have avoided many cost of conflict would we have adapted an attitude of resolution instead of defending our positions.  Levine explains that “learning and being open to influence puts you in a mind-set of discovery, allowing you the luxury of not knowing the answers or the specific path that you will take” (2009, p. 98).  When we open ourselves to other perspectives, voices and ideas we open ourselves to other opportunities.  No one knows everything about everything, yet during a conflict our emotions and pride restrain us from learning.

I think the takeaway from this exercise is to learn to think from the heart, but not necessarily from the emotions.  To step away from the conflict far enough were you are not emotionally invested but still able to see other perspectives.  And most importantly, I feel that I will be more adept to “listening” to others instead of fighting to maintain my position.

References

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