Read?HBR What you dont know about making decisions? Garvin, Roberto (2001). Required: Unit Journal Posts ? Individual Stud
- Read HBR “What you don’t know about making decisions” Garvin, Roberto (2001).
Required:
- Unit Journal Posts – Individual
Students will make three (3) Posts per UNIT. Each Post must be a MINIMUM of 200 words.
Each Post must consist of the following three (3) elements:
- an important fact from the UNIT reading,
- what this fact means,
- why this post is important to you.
Student will post one (1) response per UNIT. Students will select another student’s Post and provide an encouraging response to the ideas expressed by that student. Each Response must be MINIMUM of 100 words.
What you don't know about making decisions – Garvin and Roberto
Leaders are made or broken by the quality of their decisions.
The reason:
most businesspeople treat decision-making as an event
Making a decision that way is to overlook the larger social and organizational context.
It's a process that unfolds over weeks, months, or even years.
Decisions as Process: Inquiry versus Advocacy
Not all decision-making process is are equally effective.
Two broad approaches:
Inquiry
Advocacy.
Inquiry
Inquiry is a very open process. It’s all about:
alternatives
exchange of ideas
tested solutions
Inquiry considers options and works together. Goal is:
not to persuade
agreement on the best course of action
share information and
draw their own conclusions
With Inquiry
Encourages critical thinking and debate.
Participants feel comfortable raising alternative solutions.
People question assumptions.
Disagreements revolve around ideas and interpretations rather than entrenched positions.
The implicit assumption:
A solution will emerge from:
a test of strength among competing ideas… not duelling positions.
Advocacy
immersed in discussion and debate,
select a course of action on what they believe is the best available evidence
Not on new ideas and interpretations
Advocacy perspective…..participants
passionate about their preferred solutions
stand firm in the face of disagreement.
Passion:
Hard to remain objective
limits ability to pay attention to opposing arguments
Goal
make a compelling case,
not convey a balanced view.
Disagreements are:
fractious
antagonistic.
Personalities and egos come into play.
The implicit assumption – a superior solution will emerge from a test of strength.
This approach:
suppresses innovation
encourages participants to go alone with a dominant view
avoids conflict
CONFLICT
Constructive conflict
Critical thinking and rigorous debate lead to conflict.
Conflict:
not always means negative
brings issues into focus.
Conflict comes in two forms:
cognitive (intentional)
affective (emotion)
Cognitive conflict – disagreements of ideas and assumptions on best way to proceed
This conflict is crucial to effective inquiry
Challenging underlying assumptions:
flags real weaknesses
introduces new ideas.
Affective conflict is emotional.
Involves personal friction
clashing personalities
Diminishes willingness to cooperate.
The challenge for leaders
increase cognitive conflict
keep affective conflict at a minimum.
Meaning……..
keep emotional conflict at minimum
personal friction diminishes relationships.
HOW?
establish norms or rules
make vigorous debate the rule
…………..not the exception.
structure the conversation so the process fosters debate
Example: Point counter Point
One group is asked to develop a proposal
A second group generates alternative recommendations.
The groups exchange proposals and discuss the various options until there is agreement.
Intellectual Watchdog
One group is asked to develop a proposal
A second group critiques the proposal of the first and sends back for revision.
Cycle is repeated until proposal meets the standard of the second group.
But even if you’ve structured the process toward encouraging cognitive conflict, there's always the risk that it will become personal.
How to structure?
First
pay attention to how issues are framed
the language used
Set ground rules about language
avoid words and behaviours that trigger defensiveness.
Second
help people step back from pre established positions
breaking up natural coalitions
assign people to tasks on some basis rather than traditional loyalties
Alternative alliance partners for people with differing interests to work with one another.
Third,
shift individuals out of well grooved patterns, or vested interests or highest. Ask groups to research and argue positions they ordinarily do not endorse.
Finally, ask participants locked in debate to revisit key facts and assumptions. Gather more information. People become so focused on differences that they end up reaching a stalemate. Ask people to examine underlying pre-assumptions.
13
Consideration
Once a decision's been made and alternatives dismissed, some people will have to surrender the solution they preferred.
At times those who are overruled grudgingly accept different outcomes.
The critical factor appears to be the perception of fairness – procedural justice. People participating in the process must believe that their views are considered and that they had an opportunity to influence the final decision.
If so, participants believe process was fair and they will be more willing to commit themselves, even if their views did not prevail.
All opinions cannot prevail, but all opinions have value in shaping the right answer.
Voice without consideration is damaging. That leads to resentment and frustration rather than to acceptance. People need to believe that they were heard and considered. Thus, the decision-making process will be seen as a sham.
Leaders can demonstrate consideration through-out the decision-making process. At the outset, they need to convey openess to new ideas and a willingness to accept views that differ from their own.
They should avoid disclosing their personal preferences early in the process.
Leaders must take care to show they are actively listening and are being attentive.
How?
ask questions,
probe for deeper explanations,
echo comments, and
show patience.
After a leader makes a final choice, they should explain their logic. They must describe the rationale for their decision, detailing the criteria they used.
Most importantly, they need to convey how each participant's arguments affected the final decision.
Closure
Knowing when to end deliberations is tricky. All too often decision-making rushes to a conclusion.
Decision making can drag on endlessly where a decision is made too late. Making a decision too early is just as damaging is deciding too late period.
Deciding too early
Sometimes people's desire to be team players overrides their willingness to engage in critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.
Where a group readily accepts the first possible option is known as “group think”.
The danger of group think suppresses the full range of options to be considered but also unstated objections will come to the surface at some critical moment.
First line of defense against group think – leaders need to learn to recognise latent discontent (existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed). Leaders need to bring people back into the discussion
HOW?
This may be done by approaching dissenters one by one an encouraging them to speak up.
Second – another way to avoid early closure, cultivate minority views either through norms or rules. Minority views broaden and deepen debate as they stretch a group’s thinking.
Deciding too late
At times, a team hits the wall. Without a mechanism for breaking the deadlock, discussions become an endless loop.
At other times, people bend over backward to ensure even-handed participation. Striving for fairness, participants insist on hearing every view and resolving every question before reaching a conclusion.
This demand for certainty results and usually in an endless loop, replaying the same alternatives, objections and requests.
What do leaders need to do?
At this point it's the leader's job to call the question and announce a decision.
The message here is that leaders need to become more comfortable with ambiguity and be willing to make quicker decisions in the absence of complete, unequivocal data or support.
CONCLUSION
A Litmus Test
Successful outcomes can be evaluated only after the fact. Is there anyway to find out earlier whether you are on the right track.
Researchers suggest there is. Research shows that there are a set of traits that are closely linked with superior outcomes.
Multiple alternatives
When groups consider many alternatives, they engage in more thoughtful analysis and usually avoid settling too quickly on obvious answers.
Assumption testing
Facts come in two varieties:
those that have been carefully tested and
those that have been merely asserted or assumed.
Effective decision-making groups do not confuse the two. These groups step back from their arguments and try to confirm their assumptions by examining them critically.
You may still find they are lacking hard evidence, but at least people will know they are venturing into uncertainty if you have critically examined your facts.
Well defined criteria
Without clear goals, competing arguments become difficult judge.
Fuzzy thinking – long delays are the likely result.
To avoid this problem specific goals up front and repeatedly during the decision-making process.
Although these goals can be complex, quantitative and qualitative, at the fore.
4. Dissent and debate
there are two ways to measure the health of a debate:
the kinds of questions being asked and
the level of listening.
Some questions open up discussion; others narrow it and end deliberations.
The level of listening is an equally important indicator of a healthy decision-making process. Poor listening produces:
flawed analysis
personal friction.
Participants routinely interrupting one another before considering all the facts and information, affective conflict is likely to materialise.
Group harmony disappears in the absence of active listening.
5. Perceived fairness
A real time measure of perceived fairness is level of participation.
Often, a reduction in participation is an early warning of problems. Some members of the group are already showing their displeasure.
Keeping people involved in the process is the most crucial factor in making a decision, and making it stick.
It requires the strength to promote conflict while accepting the:
ambiguity,
wisdom to know when to bring conversations to a close,
patience to help others understand the reasoning behind your choice, and
ability to embrace both the divergence that may characterise early discussions and the unity needed for effective implementation period
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
