A632.7.3.RB - Collaborative Decision Making

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 are 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 working a Boeing Frederickson, I was more of a projects industrial engineer (IE) and got to participate in a lot of projects and negotiations about how projects would be studied, implemented, sustained, etc. Sometimes these negotiations were really more one-sided and a directive from leadership to make something happen, or make something go away/get better/go faster/go slower/etc. The single source of data initiative was not one of those things. It had been started a few years before I came to Boeing by my mentor and the IT team leader. They had been writing programs for more real-time data tools to help people adhere to a schedule and understand the needs of the factory better. Instead of cherry picking parts, they had to follow a set part mix that was decided on by several factors. By the time I got to join in on the project, it was time to put giant monitors on carts and get them to pivotal points in the value stream. In all, we put out 40 carts/monitors each with its own laptop to run the monitor. This was so operators could update data as they finished operations and see what was coming to their specific areas. Before we dumped 40 monitors out in the factory, we did a test run of just one set-up. We decided on the area with the biggest naysayers so we knew we would get feedback! The content of each side’s story is the crucible that holds the potential for a solution honoring the concerns of all parties. (Levine, 2009) I talked to the people in the area before the monitor was set up so they knew it was coming and asked them what they would like to see displayed – what would make their job easier. After the expected comments about the monitor getting HBO or ESPN, they started to say that they would like to know what was really emergent when it came down the value stream and what the part mix would be like for the day. Once we implemented the monitor, we heard all kinds of concerns, even that the aluminum dust in the air would make the TV explode. (It did not.) But after a while, when I went to the factory to check on everything, I saw some of the biggest skeptics taking on more and more ownership of the data. It was so cool! Because we had gotten their buy-in and included all of the stakeholders in the process, they felt more compelled to use the new tool and their input helped us with the rest of the implementations. They still loved to tell me when the monitor was not working or the laptop off-line. (“Your computer thing is broken AGAIN.”) But they used it and they helped us make the adjustments to the data systems that allowed us to customize the output in other areas more effectively. The monitors weren’t overly successful in every single area where they were initially installed but we adjusted our tactics after asking questions and listening to the people who would have to use the monitors.

            If those stakeholders hadn’t been involved, we could have rolled out thousands of dollars of equipment to only have it shoved in the corner collecting dust. People in the factory didn’t like to be dictated to, that tactic never ended well. We knew this from our daily interaction with them so we made sure to get their input and we acted on it. If we had asked for their opinions and then ignored everything (we ignored the request for HBO and ESPN) then they wouldn’t have trusted us going forward. Their input and use of the data led to better data mining and more specialized programs being used for specific areas. And as I said, not all monitors worked well where they were initially installed. We had one monitor that we actually had mounted to the wall specifically for the delivery/receiving area that was (to my knowledge) not used unless it was me turning it back on again. We eventually moved that to another area that had shown a need and enthusiasm for it. By not being rigid in our processes and including all of the stakeholders, whether they cared or not, we were able to roll out a fairly successful project that allowed better visibility and ownership of the parts running through the factory. Engaging in a process of resolution ignites sparks of creativity, and telling stories puts that creativity into play. (Levine, 2009)

References:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: turning conflict into collaboration. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

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.

One of the things in our readings this week really struck me - it was an epiphany! Levin says that [a]llowing the story to emerge is a critical part of the process. When we interrupt those who have a story to tell by asking questions we think are critical we are effectively cutting off their catharsis and depriving ourselves of deeply knowing what they are thinking. (Levine, 2009) I am absolutely guilty of doing that, of interrupting people to ask a question that I think is critical or relevant. What I’m doing though is not only cutting off the speaker’s catharsis but am commandeering the dialog. I interrupt their thought process and their need to tell their story has been redirected to answering my question. I always thought it was okay to do this because it showed that I was interested in what they were saying and that I was paying attention. When you initially become involved in resolving a conflict, it is essential to listen to the story, the whole story, in the way the other person wants to tell it. (Levine, 2009)

The more I thought about this way of listening and tried to apply this idea to my daily communications, the more relieved I was. It was almost like I could relax and just listen to people without feeling the pressure to interject a question or comment that would let them know I was paying attention. I didn’t try to come up with any questions or redirect their story. It was hard because old habits are tough to break. I wasn’t always successful – I was more successful with people I wasn’t as close with. It was tougher with people I am closer with because my friends and I have a certain pattern to our conversations – for better or worse. But it was an interesting exercise that I will continue. I feel like I got to hear more of the storyteller’s truth when I didn’t inadvertently hijack the conversation.

My coworker (and friend) just found out that her Dad has prostate cancer. When she first told me, obviously I was sympathetic and listened to her fear and confusion. I tried to ask her questions about the procedures in an effort to let her know that I was concerned and interested – invested in her pain. Looking back, it might have been better to have just listened and let her get all of thoughts and feelings out – not commenting or interjecting my stuff. The more I think about it, my efforts to let her know I was listening and concerned could have come across as self-serving. That makes me feel awful! We were extremely busy at work this week – we are going through a big statement of work transition so we have training most days that takes us away from our regular (and emergent) work so we spend additional time at work to make up for the class time. We’re all working 12-15 hour days lately. I didn’t get to spend a lot of time with my coworker this week but when I had lunch with her on Friday, I asked how her Dad was doing and just let her talk. It felt good to just listen with my heart and be there for a dear friend.   

References:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: turning conflict into collaboration. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

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

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?

            What I consider my protected values are compassion, equality, and the importance of family. My values are all sort of rooted in the idea that human compassion above all else is important. I believe that there is always an opportunity to be nice to someone else – that is a choice we make – the opportunity exists in every interaction with a fellow human. Compassion also works in my value system that everyone should be viewed as equals. Living in the deep south as a woman working in a man’s world of aviation is challenging.  It requires that I suspend my reality for the actual reality around me. Here in South Carolina, we tour manor houses on properties that were once farmed and worked by humans that were owned by other humans. Humans thought of as property – same as a horse or a garden hoe. Women have been thought of property for most of history and I can’t say that they still aren’t.  My value of the importance of family is also rooted in compassion. I was taught compassion and inclusion from a very early age. I don’t understand people who aren’t compassionate – I don’t even get why not being compassionate is an option.

            As far as how these values affect my decision making – I try to be compassionate in my decision making. I try to consider all sides and think about how each party will be impacted, positively or negatively. This isn’t a perfect world so decisions that need to be made will inevitably not benefit every individual. I think that’s where the real compassion comes in though – we know that for every choice we make, someone is probably unhappy about it – we can’t please everyone. When I need some personal time, I usually lose myself walking around Target or Pier One or someplace like that. I also usually buy things – not big things – but I do gravitate toward unique bowls. We have so many bowls. My husband is not happy about the number of unique bowls we have – but he knows that when I need some “me” time that I usually come back happier or more a piece with something I’ve been trying to work out. I make the decision to walk around a store knowing that I’ll probably buy something and that my husband will probably be annoyed, but I know that it helps me think so the trade-off is better for both of us. Instead of going home and sulking or getting into a fight or something – I spend some time with myself and then come home in a better mental state. I decompress and don’t take it all out on the man I love.

            When I make decisions at work, I also try to be compassionate. Compassion though, does not carry a lot of clout in aviation. It can be misconstrued as unsure or indecisive. I just don’t believe that we don’t have five minutes to think about who the decisions we make really impact. The hardship the families of the mechanics will go through when we implement mandatory overtime before the holidays – thinking about that is important. It’s so very important. We don’t live and work and exist in bubbles. We don’t float around in our tiny little compartmentalized worlds not interacting or impacting other people – it just doesn’t work that way. Even when we don’t interact or impact someone we are making a choice to not impact or interact.

            The big one – equality – is something I deal with every day. I wrote about my new boss and how my first reaction to hearing she would be my new boss was very negative and not very compassionate. It didn’t value her as a person much less a woman. For all my talk about compassion and equality; I most definitely am still working on it. In our industry, women have been very much less than equal for a long time. Even when we did pick up a wrench and built airplanes during WWII – Rosie the Riveter style – we were once again relegated to the chrome kitchens of the 1950’s when it was over. When I was an industrial engineer, I was the only woman on our team. I thought that my team respected me and we worked well together. The truth was that I was always the one they came to when they needed to plan a birthday party or team event, not when there was a cool project or a tough assignment. I was on those teams for sure – but not as a leader, usually as a data compiler, not a decision maker. Inequality in my industry is a lot more polite than it used to be, no one is being deliberately rude or dismissive of women but the assignments are different and the longer I’m with Boeing, the more I see it. It’s kind of like when I took drawing classes and I learned about negative space – suddenly I saw the negative space everywhere I looked, to the point of distraction. The more I think about compassion and equality, the more I notice it for better or worse. Those things are important to me and I don’t want to compromise those things – I want to do better at recognizing my faults when it comes to being compassionate and inclusive.

            This post assignment talks about trade-offs – what trade-offs are we willing to make to support (or not support) our beliefs. I’m going to try to not sound defensive, but I don’t think that you make trade-offs with values. I know that’s contrary to what the text says, but I don’t think of values as being interchangeable with other values. If I hold compassion as a value then I hold it for the newborn baby as well as the serial murderer. There is no trade-off. If compassion means we execute that serial murderer so they never kill again, then so be it. Does that make me less compassionate? Less inclusive? I honestly don’t see it that way. I don’t know what trade-offs I might have to make to practice compassion and inclusion at work – does that mean I might never get to be a manager or make a real difference at work? If in order to be a manager I have to be less compassionate then that is something I would rather not be. I don’t believe that being a manager and being compassionate or inclusive are different things. But if where I work thinks they are, then that’s a trade-off I’m not willing to make.

            Are my values as protected as they were at the beginning of this post? Yes. If they weren’t, they’d merely be priorities. Values are deeply rooted things that we hold on to as absolutes. Whether we have to make tough decisions or choose between a bad and a less bad thing, we have to consider our values. We will fail, we will make mistakes, but we have to hold on to those values. Personally, they are what connects me to my family and the way I make it through each day. The importance of family means that although I think my niece is too young to have a baby, I’m going to support her because that is what she needs. She is family, my new great-nephew is family, it’s not easy because I see all of the things she could be giving up at 19 being a Mom already. But that’s the thing, I value the importance of family over my doubts so there isn’t a trade-off. I’m absolutely imperfect and I absolutely make poor choices – like my initial reaction to my new boss – that was awful. But I recognized it and it has opened my eyes to other women and how I react to them as well. If compassion is such a strong and protected value of mine, I need to be sure to be compassionate to myself as well. I feel like I got on my soapbox a little with this post, my apologies. By recognizing how the context of the decision affects the application of values, one can more effectively present questions involving values. (Hoch, et al., 2008)

References:

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

A632.4.4.RB - Deception in Negotiations

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?

I am terrible at negotiations. I don’t like it when people misrepresent themselves or their products so I’m continuously skeptical when people start trying to sell me on something or negotiate for something. I also know that we hate in others the things we hate in ourselves so I have to honestly reflect on if I do this too. When I was in retail, my job was all about selling. I used to work for Dillard’s in the children’s shoes department. I was maybe 19 at the time and I knew that in order to sell those expensive Stride Rite shoes to new parents I had to be savvy. No one was going to buy $30 shoes for their infant from some wide-eyed teenager! (Or so I thought.) This was back in 1993 – before Google – and I thought the best way to influence the parents was to learn how the human foot develops. This way I could scientifically explain why a shoe was better or worse for a baby’s little foot. I would negotiate the purchase with my facts and data – not shiny shoes or sparkly laces. I learned a lot about feet in general and my sales were pretty good. The plan had worked. In sales, the technique is to always show your “Cadillac” merchandise first. You always start out with the top of the line in the hopes that the customer will just agree with everything you say and buy the $1000 TV instead of the equally performing $400 TV.

Hoch talks about the ways to protect ourselves against deception by first preparing your questions, evaluating motivations, increasing the costs of deception, considering the setting, and avoiding overconfidence. Starting with being prepared – isn’t that a cardinal rule of the Boy Scouts or something? Always be prepared? Coming to the negotiation table prepared is something I never do. I always just wing it. My sister was always complaining about how much overtime she had to work. She was exhausted and over-worked with no monetary rewards. She actually figured out how to split her work statement into two separate positions, one being a lead position, the other more clerical. She took it to her bosses, negotiated for the lead and the lead pay and actually got it. I would have given it to her too. She had basically done all the heavy lifting and got them the reasoning and backing to hire a second person. She took the initiative to change what was wrong and basically got herself promoted to a position she custom made for herself. I’m still astonished at the moxie this took. I also have a friend who when she was leaving a marketing firm negotiated her own exit strategy – they wanted her to sign a non-compete clause that would have rendered her non-hirable for any position above an assistant. She had studied law in college as a minor and got them to agree to her terms. She is now the VP of a big marketing firm in Seattle. (We both started out as florists in Tacoma – look at us now! Ha!) These women were prepared when they sat at the negotiation table. I’m usually just glad they don’t fire me. What is that all about?

Second is to evaluate motivations – what is motivating each person in the negotiation? When I was selling shoes, my motivation to learn more about how feet grew was money. I earned a base pay but after so many sales, I earned a commission. The more shoes I sold, the more money I had. I was making $7 an hour so I tried to sell A LOT of shoes. When my husband and I go to buy a vehicle, I know that his motivation is to pay as little as possible for the vehicle, the sales person’s motivation is the opposite. My husband loves a good negotiation - he also always comes prepared. Understanding the motivation of the negotiating parties is important so that you know what you want the outcome to be. Is someone going to lose money or reputation if they lose the negotiation? Those things can be heavy motivations to go all in on a negotiation. It makes a person get desperate and desperate people will say anything to not lose.

Third is to increase the cost of deception. Back to the sales example, if a car salesman sells me a car that he promises is perfect and runs well but when I get up to go to work the next day it doesn’t start and the exhaust falls off in the driveway, he has committed fraud. There is a law that says he can’t do that. He will lose the sale and his reputation by selling me a lemon. The law was there to increase the cost of deception. When we negotiate terms, we have to have boundaries and things like the lemon law or even the non-compete clauses help to bring the negotiating parties on somewhat level ground.

The fourth is consider the setting for the negotiation. Are you at a disadvantage because the negotiation is taking place via teleconference and it is going to be at 2am your time – a time when you are normally asleep? Are you going to be at your best? What media is being used? Email? Telephone? Most diagnostic cues for detecting deception are non-verbal, and different media…will influence whether or not negotiators will use deception. (Hoch, et al., 2001) When I am working with my suppliers, it is always either over the phone or via email or text. I have never met any of them in person before. We have to trust each other equally. I have to trust them when they say an outside processor is down and that’s why the parts will be late. I also have to trust them when they say they’ve shipped something. They have to trust me that when I say I need something I actually need it and am not just trying to cover my rear. They have to trust that they will be working overtime in their factories because I honestly need a second issue part and not because I was too lazy to order it on time.

And the last thing – avoiding overconfidence. This comes back to the sales tactics; if something seems too good to be true – it usually is. Those guys on late night home shopping networks are so excited and confident about their {insert product/service here} stuff that they will make it seem unbeatable at any price. Besides, that’s what Amazon and Amazon reviews are for. When I’m in a meeting and someone comes in who is over confident and even cocky about what they are presenting, I’m always skeptical. If their process is 100% fail proof then why are they having to work so hard to get it approved? What is the catch? Why are we being directed to look at the big green floating head and not the man behind the curtain? Recently, I volunteered to drive my co-worker to the team’s volunteer day at a food pantry. As we were leaving the parking lot, she asked if I needed direction to the highway. I assured her that, “Oh I know the way to I-26 from here, don’t you worry.” Well, I didn’t know that we needed to head southbound on I-26 and not northbound. She will not let me forget that – it was hilarious actually – in my overconfidence I neglected to find out which direction we needed to go! 

After honestly reflecting on this reflection blog, I can see that all of this makes me a terrible negotiator. When going to talk to my boss about our raises, I usually just take what they give me. I don’t look at industry standards or bring my documented successes to the discussion – I’m just glad to be getting a raise. When I go to buy a vehicle on my own, I will take whatever price they offer first and just be happy that I’ll have a reliable vehicle. (Which is why buying vehicles is now my husband’s job.) I think the problem is that I don’t believe in myself enough to overstate things when I’m in a negotiation situation – at least when it comes to my work or my raises. I don’t barter or haggle. I’m not confident enough at all to do those things. I wish I was! If anything, I understate things in order to avoid having to disappoint people. I try not to miss represent myself or my abilities. I try to stay realistic. I try my hardest to just do my best every day. I wish I was a better negotiator but not a shady one. The only thing I’m selling is my abilities these days – I can’t overstate that because I’m the one who has to walk the talk!

References:

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