A632.9.3.RB - Role of Emotion in Decision Making

In this video, Prof. Baba Shiv of Stanford University speaks to the importance of emotion in decision making, particularly as related to confidence. 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 were less confident or not so confident of the outcome. Based on this module's readings and this video, write a reflection blog detailing the situations above and describing the role emotion played in decision making. Include what emotional reactions you experienced for each scenario.

The video this week was very insightful, yet reflecting on past modules left me with some questions. Professor Baba Shiv stated that it is critical that you invoke emotion into the decision-making process (2011). Comparing his ideas to Sheena Iyengar's video from module 2, what is the relationship between emotion and how quickly one makes a decision? According to Iyengar’s (2011) research, a typical American makes an average of 70 choices in a typical day, 50% of decisions were made in 9 minutes or less, and only 12% of their decisions did they make an hour or more of their time. Another question I contemplated is, can you have a "fake it until you make it" attitude with confidence? Even if the confidence is not sincere, could "faking it" build the self-confidence over time?

I ask these questions because not too long ago, I used to think of myself as a poor decision-maker. Not necessarily that I made bad decisions, but that I was not very good at deciding. I am not sure if it was due to lack of self-confidence, analysis paralysis, choice overload, or laziness but I hated making decisions and would often defer to others. When I did make decisions, I would not feel confident and often questioned my choices and alternate routes. It didn't matter how big or small the decision was, I was not a confident decision-maker. For example, I used to not be a very social person. However, my husband on the other hand is very social. He decided to have several couples over to our house for a super bowl party. I was not sure of myself or the situation. I went to the store to buy soda for the party. It should be a simple task but I get to the soda isle, what do I see? A sea of choices. Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Sprite, Fanta, Mountain Dew, A&W, etc. I decide on Coca-Cola but then there’s more decisions. Coca-Cola regular, diet, zero, cherry, light. Now I am uncertain what our guests might like and start to second-guess my decision to buy Coca-Cola. Then I start to doubt whether to get soda or not. I leave empty handed and frustrated, desperately hoping the guests are satisfied with sweet tea and water. I fretted over the decision all night and apologized for the lack of beverage choices. I had a miserable time because of my indecision and lack of confidence in something so trivial.  

My growth in the military and in this "Leadership journey" have improved my confidence and overall decision-making abilities.  The past five years or so, I have been in very prominent leadership roles.  While I did not always feel confident in my abilities or decisions, I have grown and learned so much.  Furthermore, I had to sometimes adopt the "fake it until you make it" attitude to get the job done.  When I was a Production Superintendent, I started out unsure of myself due to my limited B-2 experience.  However, I quickly learned that the job was not about how much I knew but about leading my people to get the job done.  Within months of starting that position, I became confident in my abilities and decisions.  I enjoyed the job and that I was learning new things every day.  Like Professor Shiv stated, confidence has an effect on how motivated and engaged you are (2011). My confidence grew and was contagious amongst my peers and subordinates.  Idealized influence, or charisma, is an emotional component which "describes leaders who act as strong role models for followers; followers identify with these leaders". (Northouse, p. 167) The crew chiefs wanted to work for me.  We developed a great team that built each other up and were able to effectively accomplish the mission.

It is critical that you invoke emotion into the decision making process because:
1. passion is persuasive
2. confidence Is contagious
3. extraction of utility from the experience you faced

References:
Iyengar, S. (2010). “The Art of Choosing”. TEDGlobal 2010. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing?language=en
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed). Los Angeles: SAGE
Shiv, B. (2011). Brain Research at Standard: Decision Making. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKcLinks to an external site

A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

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.

People typically make decisions by following a pattern of information gathering, assessment and identifying and selecting the best alternatives. The Cynefin Framework “sorts the issues facing leaders into five contexts defined by the nature of the relationship between cause and effect” (Snowden and Boone, 2007, p.70). The contexts are simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disorder- which is situated at the center of the framework. The Cynefin Framework allows decision makers to see that different situations require different responses. Simple and complicated contexts occur in an ordered universe where cause-and-effect relationships are sensible, and the correct answer or choice can be resolved based on the facts. The complex and chaotic contexts where cause-and-effect have no apparent relationship, are unordered, and the future is determined based on the emergence of patterns. The unordered world is represented by pattern-based management while the ordered world is the fact-based management world (Snowden & Boone, 2007). 

The first example that came to mind when reading this week's module was a situation that I experienced two years ago.  I was the acting Production Superintendent on night shift.  It was approximately 2 a.m. with not a lot of work going on.  The weapons troops on shift were supposed to be doing simple, routine maintenance.  Suddenly, the weapons expeditor came to my office and explained that his troop had accidentally activated the Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) system in the aircraft dock.  This system is used to extinguish flammable liquid fires such as aircraft fuel fires.  When activated, it is designed to fill the entire dock with foam to quickly extinguish the fire and prevent further damage.  None of had encountered this type of emergency situation and knew that decisions needed to be made quickly.  The first thing was to react and ensure everyone was safely out of the hangar (chaotic).  The severity and urgency of the situation influenced my decisions.  I had to call in the emergency responders (complicated).  The fire department was called and responded.  While the emergency services safed the hangar, I called supervision and decided to get a camera to take pictures for the impending investigation.  At the same time I had to continue to manage maintenance on the rest of the fleet for the morning fliers (simple).  Gradually, we moved a more complex domain with emergent solutions.  I knew the aircraft would need to be towed out and I quickly decided where to move it.  Then I discovered we had to tow the aircraft in the next dock, as well.  I gave my maintainers guidance and they acted quickly and effectively.  

A second example of decisions in multiple contexts is in another emergency situation.  There was an aircraft experiencing an In-flight Emergency (IFE).  I had to quickly take action by keeping my supervision informed, contacting the fire department and coordinating getting the crew chiefs and other specialists to the runway to respond to the emergency.  Once again, at the same time I had to manage other maintenance on the flightline to keep it running routinely and according to established procedures.  In both the AFF and the IFE situation, I had to keep calm and allow solutions to emerge rather than trying to impose them.  

There are 5 ways that the Framework specifically provides a better context for decision-making.
The first way is through awareness: Leaders often make decisions without knowing the context of the decision. These may be emotion driven and can cause errors in thinking. The Framework helps analyze the context. The second way that the Cynefin framework can provide me with an improved context for decision making is by educating me on what context each quadrant of the framework addresses. Is the situation simple or known, complicated or knowable, complex or chaotic? The framework can also help avoid cognitive bias that arises from utilizing traditional measures to arrive at a resolution or decision. A cynefin framework is an approach that can be used in addressing the uncertainties. The framework provides me with situational awareness with regards to the big picture while addressing the issues that can work to make me lose focus on the big picture.  Overall, I find the Cynefin framework to be beneficial to my decision-making process. It allows me to come up with a plan to address future decisions while giving me a template with which I can analyze past decisions.

Reference:
Snowden, D.J. & Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Retrieved
from: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-makingLinks to an external site.

A632.7.3.RB - Collaborative Decision Making

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?

Recall a specific situation where you were faced with making a decision; within the context of the information in this module’s reading, describe the process you went through and the outcome you were seeking. How did stakeholder involvement help you make a better decision? If stakeholders were not involved, could they have been? Would that have led to a better resolution? Did you achieve your objective(s)? Identify 3 ways you may use this learning experience to make better decisions in the future.

When I was put in charge of managing the Sortie Support Section, I knew there was a lot to fix. We were responsible for the security, control, and accountability of equipment. However, the section was in a troubled state. The Quality Assurance pass rates were very low and morale was almost non-existent. Not to mention the fact that our customer service reputation was lacking. The support members would greet customers with irritability and slowly retrieve tools. Conflict between my members and our customers was a daily occurrence. I needed to fix it, but wasn't sure how. 

While reading a story in this book I first got the idea to implement the outward mindset in my section. The story in the book described how Bill Bartman built a debt collection company that figured out ways to help their clients make money. “They operate from the premise that their clients owe them money precisely because they don’t have enough money to pay them.” (The Arbinger Institute, p.61) This sparked an idea in me to find ways to help our customers and section.

I started with a dry-erase board and stakeholder involvement. At the front counter where our customers stood to check out their tools, I hung a dry erase board and simply wrote “How can we make your job easier?”. I was fishing for ideas, changes, improvements that we could make. At first there was pessimism and hesitation. Finally, after a week of negative comments and complaints, real suggestions started to flow. We implemented the suggestions and our section began to improve as well as our relationship with our customers. Each time we completed a project, I would write it on the left with a check. Weeks went by and we received more and more suggestions and my team continued implementing them.

We started to communicate. Not only, were the customers communicating their ideas with us, we were communicating with each other. Within a few months, we QA pass rates increased and the number of lost tools lessened. Our customers would come in with smiling faces and my Airmen would optimistically greet them while quickly retrieving whatever tools needed. The support Airmen also came up with a myriad of ideas to improve the section and benefit the customers. We shifted our organizational mindset from an inward one, to an outward mindset.

According to Levine (2009), decision-making can be viewed the same way a problem-solving. Decision-making is our way of getting down to the bottom line and the details of the issue. A simple dry erase board was the solution to improving my section and minimizing conflict with the customers. Resolution is a much better resource than compromise since the cost of aftereffect is less. Conflict resolution is a skill that we can learn by cultivating the habit of alternative practices (Levine, 2009). Stakeholder involvement was critical to the success by implementing their ideas for improvement rather than my own.  

If those stakeholders hadn’t been involved, my decisions to "fix" the section could have been a waste of time. Levine (2009) asks “does the preliminary vision fit everyone’s view of the outcome” (p.137). By getting the stakeholders input, I understood what vision they each had for an outcome. On the other hand, if we (Support Section) had asked for the customers opinions and then ignored everything then they wouldn’t have trusted us going forward. We made sure to 

get their input and act on it. Being flexible in our processes and including all of the stakeholders, whether they cared or not, we were able to roll out a fairly successful solution that allowed better communication and ownership of the processes in the section. Engaging in a process of resolution ignites sparks of creativity, and telling stories puts that creativity into play (Levine, 2009). 

Levine, S. (2009 ). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

The Arbinger Institute. (2016). The outward mindset seeing beyond ourselves how to change lives and transform organizations. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler .

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

As you have read, much of Levine’s work depends upon having a keenly developed ability to listen. Often, we are so busy developing our own stories, we fail to listen actively to that which we are being told, intent only on verbalizing our own personal stories. Think about the last time you “really listened” to someone else and gave them time to “get their story out.” How different was that experience from your normal communications? What did you learn? Record your experiences in this RB. If you are unable to recall such a situation, find a time/place this week to practice active listening and report on that.

This weeks reading was very insightful and brought to mind my childhood interactions with my family.  My mother would blame it on being an "emotional Italian" woman but I vividly remember several conversations (turned into debates/fights) where my family failed to listen to each other.  Yelling in my house was the 'norm' as was talking over and interrupting each other.  None of us listened to one another.  As the "quiet one" I listened better than the rest of my family but realized the dysfunctionality.  I understood the importance of listening and clear communication.  

As an adult, I have taken many communication classes and read books on the topic to learn normal communications and have learned a great deal.  I do not allow my children to interrupt or talk over each other. I feel this makes our relationships stronger.  At work, when someone is talking I make a point to turn away from my computer and focus on the person.  A few years ago, I realized even though I had an open door policy people would come in to talk and I would talk but also be working on the computer at the same time.  Once I changed this habit and made a deliberate effort to "really listen", trust was built and communication strengthened.  

When thinking about giving someone time to "get their story out", I am reminded of my middle son, Hayden.  Whether he is telling a story or explaining why he did something, he has to get his story out.  Even if others already know the ending or he has said it several times, he honestly cannot move on without getting out his story.  I try to remind my self to be patient and let him continue as much as possible or explain why he needs to 'cut to the chase'.  While I love listening to his crazy stories, sometimes life does not allow the time and I have to cut him off.  This truly upsets him so I try not to do that often as I appreciate his openness.  Listening to him allows me to see his point of view on different things.  He is extremely smart and thinks through problems differently than most which challenges me and my husband daily.  

 

A632.5.4.RB - How Protected are Your Protected Values?

In the Hoch text, based on Irwin and Baron's discussions on protected Values (pgs.251 ff.), reflect on three of your major protected values, support those values with at least three major beliefs and show the pros and cons of each belief in terms of trade-offs you are willing to make to support or not support that belief. How do these Protected Values potentially affect your own decision making? Do you feel as strongly about them as you did when you began this exercise?

When I initially thought about my own personal values, specifically on the three values that I felt were protected they were my strong beliefs in hard work, family and service.  “Protected values (PVs) are considered absolute and inviolable” (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001, p. 251).   I believe these values are influenced by my upbringing, my husband, kids and my service in the military.   


Hard work is a value instilled at a young age for me.  My dad was a carpenter and roofer.  I remember him working 12- and 14-hour days and coming home tired, hungry and dirty.  He never turned down a job and would let my siblings and join him on jobs sometimes.  I strived to have his work ethic.  At my first duty station as a B-52 crew chief, I was ridiculed and told that a female couldn’t do the job.  I dug my heels in and refused to quit or do less than the males.  The work ethic learned at home came out and I showed the naysayers that I could the job.  I believe in working hard no matter what the job.  That value has been a building block in my career and influenced the success I’ve had.  I also try to instill the same value to my kids by assigning chores and telling them "it's not about getting the job done fast, it's about getting the job done right".    


Family has always been important to me but getting married and having kids has intensified the significance.  I believe family should come first.  One of the Air Force Core Values is Service Before Self, but I explain to my Airmen that does not mean before family.  While I value my family and feel that family should come first, after reflection I realize that maybe it has not been as protected as I initially would hope or want.  For example, at work I often go in early and stay late jeopardizing time with my family.  If family really does come first, I wouldn’t spend so much extra time at work and would prioritize time with my kids.  I realize that my values of hard work and family first can be competing values.  I must find a good balance to ensure I do not sacrifice either.  

 Before joining the military, I never really thought about “serving my country”.  I enjoyed volunteering and helping others, but my sense of service grew when I entered the Air Force.  I enjoy serving others and often tell people how much I enjoy it.  This PV affects my parenting in that I regularly have my kids donate clothes, toys and money to help others.  I also explain the importance of volunteering and serving others.  However, once again after reflecting on this PV, I realize maybe its not as protected as it seems.  Since having kids, I haven’t really volunteered or served others as often as I want.  Although I still fully believe in this value and have a strong urge towards it, I haven’t tried to fulfil it lately.  Understandably, working a full-time job, going to school and raising 3 kids is challenging but I tell my kids all the time that we should volunteer and help others, yet I haven’t followed through lately. 

References:
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.

A632.4.4.RB - Deception in Negotiations

During the course of negotiations, people often misrepresent information to gain at least a temporary advantage. For example, a seller may fabricate existence of another interested buyer, or a buyer may misrepresent the price and availability of an item from a different vendor. Reflect on deceptions in negotiations, and describe four ways to reduce your vulnerability to deception during negotiations. Relate an example of a recent negotiation in which you were misled and one in which you may have overstated a claim. In the case of the overstatement, how far would you have gone, or did you actually go, to leverage your position?

Hoch & Kunreuther (2005) stated  there are steps that one can take during negotiations to lessen the possibility of people using deception. Some of those steps are:

Establishing Trust – from the very beginning of the  process, negotiators must strive hard to sustain a foundation of trust where both sides can corroborate that there will be no deception to used on the negotiation table.

Asking direct questions and listening carefully – during the negotiation process, we need first to evaluate the happenstance of our negotiation by asking a direct question with the goal of having the other side of the table work with us and not against us. Asking direct questions is important because it allows verbal, vocal, visual clues and additional ones regarding the question(s). Listening can also indicate the mood of the conversation regarding the level of interest either party has regarding the subject matter and build up better insight of the other individual’s thought process to further explicate his/her justification or rationale.  Listening carefully is a necessity in that it can pick up tone of voice, as well as diversion if some area of interest is being passed over.

Paying attention to nonverbal cues – Hoch & Kunreuther (2005) recommended that as we are listening to the responses of the other individual, it is of utmost importance that we concentrate on the visual clues of the other individual such as respiration changes, increased blinking, etc. In many instances, lack of direct eye contact, diversion to another subject, delays in the response, agitation of body motion and other clues may indicate truth is being avoided.  People who are lying has the tendency to get emotional for fear of being caught and feeling guilty or shameful.

Keeping records and getting things in writing – One of the most important bargaining points is keeping good written records. During the negotiation process, it is essential to maintain records of all claims that the other person(s) are making. Consequential information(s) that has/have significant meaning to the deal must be placed in writing and guarantees have to be in place. Looking for loopholes in any document is best done by utilizing multiple players with checks and balances in mind. Continuous review with experienced like minded people to assure nothing is left out is imperative. Without well written agreements and documented statements, word of mouth can change directions without any notice like an oncoming storm. 

A recent example of when I was misled was in dealing with my property managers and tenants in a rental property.  The tenants contract was scheduled to end 31 October 2019.  The tenants asked to stay an extra 30 days until they moved to their new unit out of state.  My husband and I negotiated the terms of the lease extension through the property managers.  However, the property managers failed to mention that the current tenants recently had a baby and would not allow the property to be shown sooner than 30 days before them moving out.  

I overstated a claim recently when I was negotiating a manning move.  At work, there are rotations to different sections such as support and back shop.  When discussing the members who were eligible to move, I knew I couldn't afford to lose my stronger Airmen or any with too many certifications as that would hurt my qualified manning left in the shop. Therefore, I overstated my claim that the Airman I was moving was harder working than was true.  He is a decent worker but not really one that stands out among his peers.  I didn't have to go far to leverage my position as I had the upper hand.  The section I was negotiating with gave me a short turn around time for a name.  They came to me Wednesday and asked the member to be moved the following Monday.  Also, the member we were getting back in return was also not the hardest working Airman.  

References:
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.

A632.3.3.RB - Framing Complex Decisions

Describe the 3 different tools or approaches for dealing with complex, multiple stakeholders, and environmental decision processes in your organization. Reflect on changes or alterations you would consider to ensure the most successful process possible. Describe the elements in detail and make clear the available options and consequences.



Wharton describes three decision-making approaches for dealing with multiple stakeholders within complex environments.  These approaches used when navigating data-rich environments, navigating systemic complexity, and navigating multistakeholder and environmental complexity.  For example, in data-rich environments “managers are using tools such as data mining and data warehousing to harness this avalanche of data in their business decisions” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 121).  While data is an element driving complexity, “interactions across multiple system boundaries surrounding a particular decision context” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 122) is another factor increasing complexity.  Computer models are being created to navigate systemic complexity and simulate these interactions.   These models have proven to be invaluable to decision-making within complex environments but are only as good as the information input into them by the decision maker. The final challenge lies within navigating multistakeholder and environmental complexity.  The interactions of multiple stakeholders increase complexity and therefore cooperation amongst competition is a necessary tool required to help operate such a complex environment. There are also three basic ingredient to new approaches to decision-making strategies” (Hoch et al., 2001).  They are:

Building the information base.  Data mining and warehousing combined with evaluation tools provide more precise informational base for decisions.
Identifying constraints.  Assuring that today’s decisions are directed at assuring a rich menu of possibilities for tomorrow’s decisions.
Strengthening organizational capabilities.  Organizations as a whole require new skills and capabilities to design and implement new tools.
While reading this chapter I couldn't help but think of the Air Force's multiple programs and processes for assignments and duty positions.  One must go to several websites to retrieve their personal records and different websites to apply for possible positions.  In a military force of over 300,000 members, the Air Force (in my opinion) is lacking in their informational organizational capabilities.  I believe the Air Force should have a "one-stop shop" informational base with Airmen's records, available assignments/positions and other useful information (skills, experience, aptitude, personality, interests, etc).  For example, if the Air Force combined the current websites of ARMS, PRDA, AMS, VPC this would provide a more convenient process for obtaining records and information.  I also think the Air Force should have each Airmen take a personality, intelligence, aptitude and decision-making analysis that could help leadership match their styles with assignment requirements.  "The ability to effectively match an employee’s skills and personality to a specific job function is a vital component of successful management and leadership. By contrast, trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole can prove costly in terms of employee performance, team dynamics and corporate return on investment" (O'Rourke, 2019).  If the Air Force used available tests and subsequently tested members at regular intervals to compare any changes, they could manage and measure the success of our Airmen.  First the Air Force would have build the infomration base by combining available data and resources along with new personnel analysis data.  Data mining systems could analyze all the information compared with manning positions to provide leaders the best possible "fit" for each job and vice versa for each Airman.  Essentially, this could "put more powerful tools into decision maker's hands for addressing decisions" (Hoch et al, 2001, p. 129).  This proposed solution could benefit several stakeholders; the Airman, leadership and the Air Force by matching capabilities, personalities and interests.  However there are consequences as well.  For instance, it is not realistic to assume each member will be matched with their "best fit" position.  Nor is it accurate to believe that each test will be 100% correct in their assessments.  Nevertheless, I feel a model of this extent could optimize navigating the systematic, multistakeholder and environmental complexity of the Air Force.  


References:
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.
O'Rourke, James. (2019, September 17). Putting Your Personality to Work.  Retrieved from https://www.notredameonline.com/resources/business-administration/matching-employee-skills-and-personality/

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

Shoemaker and Russo (in Hoch) discuss the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to guard against them. Discuss three ways you can avoid "framing traps" and provide a detailed example of each from your life experience. Could you have framed each situation differently? What did the exercise teach you about complex decision-making? What additional tools or "frames" might have helped you through the process? How was "risk" a factor in your examples? What did you learn about yourself through this exercise? 

This week's module dived deeper into not only my own decision making, but different traps of thinking and decision-making.  One such trap is frame blindness. As Shoemaker and Russo went on to explain in Making Decisions (2001), “frames are crucial because they simplify and focus our attention on what we deem is most relevant, making it possible to decide more quickly and efficiently than with widespread attention” (p. 133). Frames help decision makers and leaders decide faster but not always better. Instead, frames also leave the opportunity to develop frame blindness. “Because we accept these simplifications as reality, frames can also create blind spots and be very hard to challenge” (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p. 135). Fortunately, there are ways to control their frames.  Three ways to avoid "framing traps" are to see the frame by conducting and audit, identify and change inadequate frames, and master techniques for reframing (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p. 142f) 

This lesson comes at a beneficial time for me.  I have just taken over a Section for 84 Airmen.  Although I know some of them, there are a lot of new members that I haven't met.  One particular Airman is struggling with being away from home.  He just finished Tech School and arrived to Missouri a few short weeks ago and has been constantly complaining to go "home" to Guam.  He says he doesn't want to be in the military anymore and will do what it takes to get out.  Initially, I was upset and angry.  The military is tough and I assume most military members "want to go home"  at first but giving up and going home is not an option.  I was angry that the Airman didn't understand and thought that he should misbehave to get separated.  I saw him as a troublemaker and a lost cause and I decided to ask the Commander to administratively separate him under "failure to adapt".  However, while reading this chapter it dawned on me that I must understand the frames of others.  "To understand other people's frames, you might ask yourself, 'What matters most to them? What do they talk about most often'" (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p. 142).  I've been to Guam twice and both times it struck me how family-oriented to locals were.  Relationships are very important in their culture.  In fact, I met a local family and two hours later was invited to their family's wedding.  Now I have a lonely 18 year old Airman from Guam who has never been away from home or family, who is experiencing American and military culture for the first time all at once and doesn't know how to deal with it all.  Understanding this frame of mind helps me connect with the Airman on a different level and see how difficult being here (in Missouri, in the Air Force and away from family and friends) could be for him.  Without this understanding, I risk losing a young Airman with untapped potential...I have yet to see what he can (and will) do for the Air Force.  




Another way I can avoid "traps" is to identify and change inadequate frames.  "We must constantly challenge our own frames" (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p. 146).  I struggle with this at my current duty station working with B-2 aircraft.  When I first joined the Air Force, I was a B-52 BUFF mechanic.  I worked 8 years on the B-52 and my basic maintenance mindset comes from that experience.  However, it has been 7 years since I worked on the B-52.  Moreover, I was a Repair & Reclamation (R&R) journeyman on the BUFF whereas now I work with flight line crew chiefs.  Most importantly the B-52 and B-2 are fundamentally different airframes; mechanical vs avionic/electrical, respectively.  My reference point as a B-52 R&R crew chief several years ago is ineffective compared to my job now working as a B-2 flight line crew chief.  When I have to make decisions and forecast schedules, I often find myself basing those decisions on my frame and experience on the B-52.  Thankfully, most of the time I catch myself and questions my reference points and recognize my key assumptions.  There are a few times that I have made decisions from this inadequate frame.  For instance, when I first started as a Production Superintendent I assumed most of the maintenance could be fixed mechanically.  I ignored information from my Avionics troops when they said they basically "recycled power" to fix the malfunction... I was wrong and it eventually led to hours of unnecessary "maintenance".  I've learned to lean on my Airmen, ask for their input and insight often.  Not only has this made me more knowledgeable on the B-2, it has strengthened relationships by showing my Airmen that I trust them.  



Although my experience on another airframe can be a trap when making decisions, doesn't mean that I can't use it to my advantage as well.  The last key way to avoid traps is to master techniques from reframing.  One technique is to use multiple frames.  "Experiment with different frames and compare the solution you develop.  Place yourself in a different environment" (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p. 148).  Another instance when I was working as Production Superintendent there was a malfunction that the technicians could not figure out.  I knew that I had to explain to my supervision the situation and wanted to understand exactly what was going on.  I went out to the aircraft and had the team show me what they were doing and explain the troubleshooting steps they were taking.  Although I had never worked on the specific components in question,  something just didn't look right to me.  I made the decision to halt maintenance while  I got a closer look, upon doing so I noticed a bearing was missing from the equipment.  The B-2 technicians were adamant that I was wrong and there was not supposed to be a bearing in that location.  However, after looking at the technical guidance I was right.  Since I was able to see the situation from a different frame, using my B-52 R&R experience, I could make an effective decision and help rectify the problem.  I believe the technicians were so in-depth working the issue that they couldn't take a step back and see a bigger problem.  The text gives an example of renewing perspectives by repositioning workers occasionally.  I have begun this same concept by rotating flight line crew chiefs to the back shops to gain different perspectives, as well.  Hopefully, this will strengthen the knowledge and experience in my section and avoid framing traps in the future.  

Another thing I have not only learned from this exercise  but also from the MSLD program is that there is no one size fits all approach to leadership. Instead I must constantly grow, develop, and change to ensure I am leading effectively. In the end, “effective leaders challenge old frames, envision bold new ones, and contrast the two very clearly” (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2001, p. 155).

1.  See the Frame by conducting a frame audit

Surface your frame

Understanding the frames of others

Appreciate emerging frames

2.  Identify and Change Inadequate Frames

Are you frames effective?

Observe the symptoms of Frame Misfit?

Question your Reference Points

Recognize your key assumptions

3.  Master Techniques for Reframing

Use Multiple Frames

Look for Ways to Align Frames

Change Metaphors

Challenge others' reference points

Stretch a frame

Build new frames for new situations

Speak to others' frames

References:
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.