A634.1.5.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

 The train dilemma offers us three scenarios in which there are people on the train tracks and we as the switchperson have to make a choice of pulling a switch that inevitably will kill some people.  The decision we have to make is who we decide will die to save the life of others.  Here are the scenarios:

Scenario #1: Kill five children versus killing only one child.  Option to switch the train between two tracks. One track kills five children and the other track only kills one.

Scenario # 2: Kill one old man versus killing five children.  Push an old man into the train which would stop the train and save the five children on the track.

Scenario # 3: Kill my own child or kill five other children.  Option to switch the train between two tracks. One track kills five children and the other track kills my own child.

In order to make this decision, I have decided to be guided by the CyneFin Framework which is a problem-solving tool that helps you categorize problems into five domains, each one describing a cause-and-effect relationship.  Here is a brief synopsis of the five domains and what they represent as far problem-solving assessment:

Simple Domain: Here the options are clear and apparent to everyone.  You are able to assess the situation, categorize it and then respond with the best practice.  There is only one correct answer and the solution is straightforward.

Complicated Domain:  Here there are multiple correct solutions.  In this case you assess the situation, analyze what you know and then choose the best solution by using good practice.  Generally this domain requires expertise.

Complex Domain: A correct solution is difficult to identify.  The best course of action is to identify patterns and wait for the answer to emerge.  This is the most common domain and requires patience and intuition.

Chaotic Domain: Problems that fall into this domain have not determined cause and effect relationship because they are constantly changing.  In these cases you are not trying to find a solution at first but instead trying to stabilize the situation as fast as possible.  This are generally crisis situations that need immediate attention where order must be established first then once the situation has scaled down to the complicated domain a solution can be found.

Disorder:  Here you do not have a clear direction and instead must gather more information so that you can move into one of the other domains in which you can make a clearer decision.

It may seem that in the train scenario there is no time to think but only react, yet if one is to make such drastic decisions on who must live and who must die, there must be some order of critical thinking and ethical theorizing.  If I were to categorize the three scenarios using the CyneFin Framework I would categorize in the following way:

Scenario #1: Kill five children versus killing only one child

I would categorize this scenario into the simple domain.  It seems the only solution is to save five children as opposed to one child.  One might say that it is unethical to consciously choose to take the life of one child who was not in harm’s way in order to save the lives of five children who were.  In my opinion it is a numbers game.  Now the question I ask myself is the following: would it be considered murder that I killed the child who was not in the line of danger in order to save five children who, for whatever reason, were in the line of danger?  Should one child, who technically was not on the track where the train was travelling, give up his/her life to save the lives of five children who were on the travelled track?  Is it fair to ask this?  Could we say that it was the fate of these children for being on the wrong track?  Even after considering these questions, I still feel ethically, when having to choose, generally speaking and in simple terms, I would choose the option that saves the largest group of people.  If I were to use a theory as a basis for this decision I would say that I would choose from one of the Consequentialist theories which are: The Utilitarian Approach, The Egoistic Approach and the Common Good Approach (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  In this instance I feel the Utilitarian Approach, which can be traced back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus of Samos, would apply best (Bonde & Firenze, 2013). This is said to be one of the most common approaches to making ethical decisions in regards to consequences that affect larger groups of people.  The Utilitarian Approach focuses on comparing the good and bad that is produced by our decisions (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  The idea is to choose the action that causes the least amount of harm.  In this case, choosing to save five children in my opinion causes the least amount of harm. 

Scenario # 2: Kill one old man versus killing five children

This scenario falls more into the complicated domain in my opinion.  There is more than one right answer.  If I follow my original rule of saving as many lives as possible, we could say that sacrificing the old man to save five children would be the most ethical decision.  But, if we theorize ethically on the situation we should ask ourselves if we have the right to designate the sacrifice of this man (against his will) in order to save five children.  The old man has not offered himself to be a martyr and I do not believe we have the right to sacrifice his life for those of the children.  He was not in the line of danger and the children were.  Pushing him into the train in my opinion would be considered murder and is unethical.  In this scenario I would apply the Common Good Approach which was promoted by Plato and Aristotle (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  “This approach to ethics underscores the networked aspects of society and emphasizes respect and compassions for others, especially those who are more vulnerable” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  Although I feel a deep moral obligation to save the life of five children at the expense of one old man, I feel that I do not have the right to decide the validity of the old man’s life and whether or not he should live.  And as I feel the elderly as well as children are one of the most vulnerable members of society, I feel I would choose for the man to live.

 Scenario # 3: Kill my own child or kill five other children

My immediate response to this question is to save my own child.  The only explanation I can give, and the only way I can theorize this ethically, is that I have an emotional attachment to my child and not the other five.  At the end of the day I have to live with the consequences of my decision. I do not think I could live knowing that I sacrificed my child for the five other children who I do not know.  On the other hand, although I would experience massive guilt about the five children that died, I would feel secure in my decision knowing that I had chosen to keep my child safe.  In this case I think the Egoistic Approach, a variation of the utilitarian approach, is the most appropriate theory to apply in this situation as it states that “an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  If we must choose to do good it will inevitably begin within our closest circle and aimed at those who we have emotional attachments to.

References

n.d. (2016). The Cynefin Framework: Using the most appropriate problem-solving process. Retrieved March 28, from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/cynefin-framework.htm

Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.

Bonde, S., & Firenze, P. (2013). A framework for making ethical decisions. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

A632.9.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Professor Baba Shiv brings up three important factors in regards to emotion and its role in the decision-making process.  He tells us in his lecture that passion, confidence and the extraction of utility from the experience that we get based on this confidence, affects our decisions.

I have noticed in my experiences at work, that when I am confident and passionate when speaking to my students about their academic careers, that this energy becomes contagious.  My students can feel my excitement and believe in things I tell them regarding education and their future.  Starting college for the first time, especially for adult learners, can be scary and I engage with many hesitate individuals.  I engage my students from the start by being confident about our programs and confident about their ability to be successful.  I am passionate about education and I prove this to them not only through my emotions but also my actions.  I have seen that these kinds of interactions have a positive impact on my student’s success because I let them know that I believe in their abilities to accomplish these academic goals.  They enter our programs with more confidence and passion on their end as well and have a higher chance of succeeding.  Emotionally I was extremely excited, proud and encouraging which I feel these emotions transferred through to my students.

An example of a situation that I did not feel confident about was when I tried to convince one of my friends to make a trip with me.  The trip was something I had to do because I needed to submit some important paperwork in another town.  I did not want to take this trip alone and tried to convince my friend that the trip would be fun and exciting.  Because I knew the town we were going to really had nothing to offer in the means of tourism, my confidence did not show through.  I showed no passion when describing the area and was only able to offer factual details that were less than desirable.  Had I confidently described the many possibilities we had in entertaining ourselves in this town, I may have been able to convince her of the benefits of accompanying me on this trip.  In this situation, I was hesitant, unsure and unrealistic which my friend easily picked up on affecting her decision to come with me.

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.