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.

A632.2.3.RB - Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

We all want customized experiences and products, but when faced with “700” options, consumers freeze up. With fascinating new research, Sheena Iyengar demonstrates how businesses (and others) can improve the experience of choosing. Identify four of the methodologies Sheena Iyengar suggests as methods of helping us improve our experience in choosing. Discuss the implications of two of these methods in terms of your personal decision-making and then as a member of an organization. Are there other ways you can improve your ability to decide?

The concept of choice is discussed in Sheena Iyengar’s video on how to make choosing easier.  According to Iyengar’s (2011) research, a typical American makes an average of 70 choices in a typical day.  I was surprised Iyengar (2011) stated 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.  Dr. Iyengar tells us in her video there are several techniques we can apply to help us avoid choice overload and improve our choosing experience.  The first methodology is to Cut.  The concept of less is more relieves us from irrelevant preferences.  Second, she suggests concretizing. When someone can visualize something it makes it more real which enables them to make wiser decisions.  The third recommended method is categorization.  When choices are categorized people know how to tell these categories apart and will be able to choose better.  For example, when shopping for peanut butter I categorize by crunchy or creamy rather than by brand.  The last methodology is  the concept of conditioning for complexity.   When faced with a high number of choices a car buyer may experience “shopper’s fatigue” but starting with a low number of choices and expanding to more will result in higher motivation and engagement on the buyer’s behalf.

I am a huge fan of cutting the number of choices for the decisions we make personally and professionally.  At home, cutting the choices I offer to my children could make a huge impact.  For example, when I let them choose what to eat for breakfast rather than asking what they want and leaving an abundance of options, I can offer two options (i.e. pancakes or eggs).  In addition to offering variety, cutting the amount of options will avoid overwhelming the decision maker (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2011).  At work, this concept can beneficial as well.  Our base plans to have a down-day next Friday for anyone that signed up for any of 12 classes.  The intent was to encourage community, increase resiliency and build morale.  However, certain members of my sections immediately had a negative attitude and complained that all the classes were probably full, that we would probably have to work anyways and that supervision would change their minds.  I kept briefing the classes and different options that were available but was still met with negativity.  After listening to this TED talk by Dr. Iyengar, I re-framed their options: participate or come to work.  I explained this is not mandatory-fun, rather a chance to get kick back and relax for while.  Reducing the options made an immediate impact and others started to get excited about the events and sign up for classes that interested them.  Using what I learned from this week's lesson I attempted to avoid overwhelming my Airmen yet also increased the perception of variety with the presence of a favorite option, i.e. time off  (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2011).   The concept of cutting choices really does reduce the “choice overload” we feel in the decision making process. 

The other methodology that I can practice based on Iyengar’s (2011) recommendation is to learn how to concretize. She suggests that in order for people to understand the difference between the choices, they have to be able to understand the consequences of each choice and the consequences need to be felt in a vivid sort of way, in a very concrete way. Working in aircraft maintenance is a mentally and physically challenging job.  It is also a huge responsibility as the pilot and crews lives depend on how well we do our job.  But I don't think our young Airmen understand the enormity of their job.  They must do their maintain and repair the aircraft safely, efficiently and effectively.  If they choose to cut corners there could be devastating consequences. For example, two Airmen recently falsely claimed to have replaced a bad oil filter. They were having trouble removing the bad oil filter and instead of reaching out for help, signed off the job as complete.  Luckily, this deception was realized prior to the aircraft flying.  I believe the Airmen did not truly understand the consequences of their actions.  I have suggested to our base leadership to allow our maintainers to have "flight time" on the aircraft simulators.  This would put the maintainers in the pilots seat (no pun intended), where scenarios such as low oil pressure could be played out.   In order to help people make decisions, we need to make things feel “real".  I made a decision this week where I failed to use this methodology.  My kids' school was celebrating the end of the 1st quarter with a pizza party.  My son did not have perfect attendance for the 1st quarter of school (he missed one day).  However, the school sent home a permission slip to participate but we would have to pay $2.  I decided not to let my kid participate rationalizing that 1-2 pieces of pizza was not worth $2 especially since we usually buy Little Caesars $5 pizzas often. I dismissed it immediately and went on with my day.  Two days later I was saying good night to my son and he seemed upset.  He explained that he felt left out today and almost cried at school, explaining that he was the only one in his class that did not get pizza.  I felt terrible.  I had made a decision about a situation that was not "real" to me and without considering all off the consequences.  There was no emotional trade off for me and I was shortsighted in my decision which had negative emotional consequences for my child.  Had I made the decision more concrete and made it more vivid the consequences of not including my son, I might have made a better choice.  

Each of Dr. Iyengar's methodologies provide tools to help make better decisions. Other ways to improve decision making is not being afraid to make a hard decision.  As a leader I must lean in to the pain to do the right thing even when it feels unnatural. (Ellis, 2014) IWe must be able and willing to make choices and move forward. Even if it’s the wrong decision, I learn and go forward.  By using these concepts in concert with decision support systems and our own intuition I am armed with new ways to enhance my decision-making ability.   

References:
Discover Your Decision Making Style. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kent.edu/career/discover-your-decision-making-style#step-1-anchor.

Ellis, L. (2014). Leading with Honor: Leadership Lessons from the Hanoi Hilton. S.1.: FreedomStar Media.

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H. & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. John Wiley & sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

A632.1.4.RB_Multistage Decision Making

After reading the Wharton text about multistage decision-making models and optimal dynamic decision analysis, I reflected on my decision-making methods and how I can improve them. 

The text suggests, for solving multistage decision problems, one should use the dynamic programming approach  (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005).  However, most decision makers fail to use this mathematical equations despite how effective they are.  Brodie (2007) lists some barriers to effective decision making as fear of failure, lack of a structured approach, procrastination or lack of clarity.  Moreover, Wharton states, "We have limited abilities to anticipate the future, we are poor at learning from the past, and even our perceptions of the present are distorted" (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005, p. 49).  Undoubtedly, I fall in to these generalizations as a decision maker.  My husband often gets upset with my unwillingness to make a decision and I recognize my reluctance, as well.  Not only do I not enjoy making decisions, I tend to be nearsighted when forced to do so.  Indeed, studies find that people generally can plan no further than just one step beyond the current decision (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005).  For example, my husband and I are eligible to retire from the military in 5 years but when I think about what I want to do afterwards, its difficult to think past my current job and what I need to do right now.  

When making a decision on how to solve a multistage problem, I rely on my past experiences and my intuition in order to arrive at a solution to the problem. I normally to try to gather as much known information as possible, then sort the information on what I believe is important or relevant to the problem, then finalize my expected outcome and move forward with making the decision. An example of this is my current role as a Section Superintendent.  I have never been in this role or supervised this many people (84) but am using my past experiences as a section chief and my knowledge of the Airmen within this shop to dictate how I lead and my goals for the future.  In the past two weeks, I have been gathering as much information I can on every member of the section (age, personal and professional goals, fitness stats, training percentages) so that I can move forward and make a decision on how to lead this team effectively.  

While I haven't sat down and clearly defined the problem, assessed the implications, or explored different perspectives those steps may be helpful in making a decision on how I want (or need) to lead my section.  

I can apply optimal dynamic decision analysis to predict the future impact of decisions by utilizing forward planning to anticipate all possible choices and outcomes and use past information to learn from and make future predictions.  Using my flight as an example again, I draw on my previous life experience as a section chief and supervisor to steer how I lead my Airmen.  My actions, decisions and behaviors will, hopefully, result in my Airmen following suit and my leadership being successful.  Furthermore, I can use individual consideration for my troops and through trial and error know how to effectively lead, train and motivate my Airmen.  I think that my growth in this area is a continual process that comes with trial and error over a lifetime. 

Additionally, thinking critically about my leadership and decision making is critical.  Hoch & Kunreuther, (2005) suggest managers should ask themselves the following four questions

• Am I being myopic?  
• How appropriate is the starting analogy I am using to solve a problem? 
• What are the penalties for making an error? 
• What am I learning from the feedback I am receiving?

Essentially, its all about feedback.  Informal feedback and personal reflection are just as important as external feedback.  As a leader, and decision maker, I need to ensure I am not being nearsighted.  Also, I should have critical awareness of analogies.  In his TED talk, Gilbert (2005) warns that decision makers tend to compare with the past and with the possible which are both errors in values.  I should be aware of consequences.  And most importantly, I need to make sure I receive feedback, avoid knee-jerk reactions and learn from my mistakes (and successes).  

Reference:

Brodie, D. (2007, Nov 5).  6 Steps to Better Decision Making.  Retrieved from https://ezinearticles.com/?6-Steps-to-Better-Decision-Making&id=817450 

Gilbert, D. (2005, July 1). TED Talk. Retrieved from Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H. & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. John Wiley & sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

A635.8.3.RB - Transformational Strategies

How do you relate and make sense of the approaches taken by Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal compared to the information presented in your textbook? Use the below figures: Figure 15.4 Relative Strength of Corporate Cultures and Figure 15.5 The Strategy-Culture Matrix in your response. 



Brown (2011) provided two informative figures relating to building success in organizations. One figure described the relative strength of corporate cultures, and the other described the strategy-culture matrix. McIngvale created a strong culture with his strategy revisions after the economic downfall and fire to his store. A strong culture is measured by a “strong member commitment to values and a high number of members sharing the values” (Brown, 2011, p. 405). Gallery also resembles a company who is managing the change by their “high need for strategic change and their high compatibility of change with existing cultures” (Brown, 2011, p. 406). 

From the information I gathered from this video, I would also say that the implementations made after 9/11 created a strong Army culture. I ascertain that a strong member commitment to values and a high number of members sharing values exists.  I also believe that the army was able to manage the change. The need for strategic change was high as no one could have predicted the unfortunate events of September 11, 2001. The compatibility for change with existing cultures was also high.

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to Organizational Development (8 ed.). Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education, Inc.

McChrystal, S. (2011, April). Transcript of "Listen, learn ... then lead". Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal/transcript?language=en

McIngvale, J. (2012). Influencer / Gallery Furniture Video Case Study. VitalSmarts Video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20RW75Fhu4