A632.4.4.RB - Deception in Negotiations

I was excited this week when we are asked to reflect on how during the course of negotiations, people often misrepresent information to gain at least a temporary advantage.   More so, as a part of the functions of my job as a Subcontract Administrator and Buyer for Lockheed Martin Aerospace, I have the responsibility of negotiating with my suppliers to ensure we leverage the best prices for our military customers.  My own first lessons in Negotiations occurred while I was in my undergrad degree program taking a course in Alternate Dispute Resolution and reading through Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury.  (Fisher, R.; Ury, W., 2016)  What I started to learn about negotiations, were that the best types of negotiations were when both team won in the end.

As we evaluate four specifics to the art of negotiation, we see that there are many avenues that one can take, and that these only represent the one’s that based on my own frames of reference and my finding links to our text and readings, are relevant to my own perspectives.  Each one of us negotiate every day, and not always in relationship to our jobs and careers, but also in our personal relationships, in our parenting with our children, and even during the course of buying services or objects from Retail establishments.

 

In evaluation of information during negotiations I think it helps to know the reputation of the person with whom you are negotiating.  Are they a liar/manipulator, tough but honest negotiator, nice and reasonable person, an easy layover or cream puff negotiator, or do they even have an particular reputation at all (Glick & Croson, 2001).  Understanding your opponent is often the first strategy in understanding and predicting how you attack your negotiation, and the particular style or methods you must evaluate or use.  Being perceptive in your abilities to observe and denote characteristic traits of another person goes a long way in helping one understand and anticipate their first hurdle.

When I take the necessary time in getting to know or in learning to understand the reputation and personality of the negotiator(s), it will help me develop how I will deal with them in the negotiation process.  When you are dealing with a liar/manipulator, you are prepared for them, when dealing with a tough negotiator, then you may start in a more firm position than you may otherwise use.  There are different approaches based on how the other negotiator may be viewed, and adaptation is the key skill ones needs to be successful (Glick & Croson, 2001).

When getting ready to negotiate, you have to decide what you are willing to risk.  This may determine if you plan to use deception and untruth in your negotiations.  Framing the outcomes based on the intended deception based on desired outcomes. What is the cost versus benefits of deception?

At the same, when deciding whether or not to use deception, it is important to prepare against deception.  This is done by getting all of your data together.  Do the research and prepare your questions.  Use the same or similar question several times, but worded differently to see if the answers are the same or consistent (Glick & Croson, 2001). 

It’s also important to understand the motivation of the other negotiator.  Know about them, are they losing money?  What are their strengths and weaknesses?  What are their priorities?  Understanding these can help you manage the information to take advantage of their reputation and use these to gain or protect your positions.

Goal setting is another tool in your tool kit to manage information.  If you know what you are looking for as an outcome and with the proper prioritization of your goals you can better protect against deception and manage the conversation, often dictating the pace and direction of the discussions.  Because you know what you want, you can drive to that, and it gives you flexibility because you know what you are willing to give up and what level of risk you are willing to accept in the negotiations.

The most important thing you can do though, includes each of the above, and that is to carefully prepare for your negotiations. The old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Preparation is the preventive part, taking place before the negotiation.  It allows you to respond to lies and avoid a point where questions can become too difficult.  It can help you avoid a deception by being properly prepared (Glick & Croson, 2001).

Recently I approved a master repair agreement package in support of long term planning for repairs of my system on the F-35 program, and I did so before it should have been approved.  Doing this placed myself in a position of weakness and one where my trustworthiness to “do the right thing (LM Motto)” could have been called into question.  Today, I had to brief our executive management team and they reminded me, that I jumped to far too fast, in fact missing some steps that are critical in the process.  For my excuse, and not that it justified my course of action, was that the time period for the approval of the monies requested for this action were expiring.  While my choice incurred a gamble, and I could have been taken advantage of, my negotiations turned out successful, and we were able to see significant savings in our final cost pricing points for every level of the repairs effort we needed agreement.

In terms of deceptive practices that I have had personal experiences with, or more so being ashamed of, I would reflect on my own days selling cars as part of my career path.  I learned to lie to a customer, as deceit or omission are just as guilty as telling the bold face lie, and knowing or misrepresenting a service or product, just to make a profit or paycheck are still bad ways to earn ones living.  I chalk this lapse in my own judgement to my youth (well 30’s) and a difficult time in my own life.  While I became very good at suggestive selling and consulting to sell tangible products – I have often reflected on wondering about if any of my car deals cause harm or financial strife to the families I sold my cars too.  Living with that guilt is often worse than doing the act that cause it in the first place.  While many of my own tactics were knowingly selling cars that were outside of what a person could or should afford, or even knowing that we purposely devalued their trade-ins to ensure making more profit, or leverage one spouse against the other to make a sell, these were all deceitful practices – and my own level of the amount or how far I would or could go was nothing short of one selling one’s soul to the devil in order to make money.

 

Now that I am more centered and ethically motivated, my own sense of playing by the rule and within the boundaries of ethical fairness have greatly improved, and I like to think I have matured a lot in the process.  LaFollette states in his book The practice of ethics, “…when we find ourselves having to be deceitful in our dealing or negotiations with others – we lose a part of our souls in the process, and we enable ourselves to be more willing to be even more deceitful in our futures” (LaFollette, 2007) I am certainly a better negotiator having understood my own limits and in being able to see deception better by having learned to recognize it with my own use.  As a parent now, I am also teaching skills to my two girls and I must do so in ways that keep them on a moral path in the process, not wanting them to learn daddy’s bad habits or secrets.

As well in the course of our team projects, we must remain tactful and respectful with our team members and we must not try to leverage an upper hand or take advantage of our group or team members – and this means that sometimes we must also loose in our battles in order to have the whole team win in the process.

Negotiation is really about learning your position and being able to gain or lose in the process.

References:

Getting to Yes. (2016, May 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:41, June 27, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Getting_to_Yes&oldid=720791946

Glick, S., & Croson, R. (2001). Reputations in Negotiations. In S. J. Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, & R. E. 

Gunther, Wharton on Making Decisions (pp. 177-186). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. UK: Blackwell Publishing.

A632.3.3.RB - Framing Complex Decisions

Reflecting on Chapter Seven of the Wharton text, Kleindorfer (2005) discusses the difficulties challenging leadership or an organization's decision-makers hammered by the data from the all-connected Internet, as well as the increased globalization facing many organizations through their connectivity to the net and the resulting global customer. This intricacy of a connected environment is also responsible for organizations being required to manage large amounts of data which has spawned the Decision Support Systems or DSS; as well as stifle the decision-making process with a systemic complexity of problems associated with environmental complexity and multiple stakeholders (Kleindorfer, 2005).

While Lockheed Martin is at times on the forefront of Leading the Technological Edge, we are at the same time caught in the cultural identity trap of still looking at opportunities for growth and change based on the same methodologies adopted by aging leadership of Baby boomers who became decision-makers void of the assistance of data modeling and technology assistance.  Many of the same challenges that our leadership faced in earlier days’ void of the internet or technology are still influencing the decision-makers who are now in the Pilot seat driving the plane.  Just as consumers are challenged to make decision based on utilization of DSS programs that still narrow our decisions down to more choices than we are capable of choosing from, our business and my leadership is also challenged with decision methodologies our organization’s utilize to deal with data rich environments, systemic complexity, and the environment complexity presented by multiple stakeholders.

Reflecting on these challenges, I believe Lockheed Martin Aeronautics has the opportunities to better process these complex data sets that would likely result in better decisions being made across our organization.  While I am often void of the complexity of the decision-making processes at the executive level, I do get to experience our decision-making at the Mid-Level management tier – more so now being involved in finding solutions to complex problems our management is challenged to solve.

Like any modern organization, Lockheed Martin Aerospace has found itself straddling great loads of data information.  Not only is the data generated by our Engineering and Development Teams looking for new solutions and adapting to the drive to match technology to solutions that earn us business, but we also are driving ourselves to utilized the data sets out there in order to keep our Technological Edge over our competition.

Within Lockheed’s Information Technology Group, our Aeronautics Group captures a great deal of raw data generated by our various departments, but also generated by external influences from our stakeholders and from other competition wanting to be integrated into our programs and teams.  Just as the military generates large amounts of data through its intelligence operations to stay ahead of the growing threats to our way of life, Lockheed Martin is also surfing through data on a global level to stay ahead of the competition, as well as keeps it creative edge.  Lockheed Martin does an excellent job of data mining this information into DSS type tools that are utilized for decisions at senior management or executive levels of our organization, especially when these decisions can be based on comparing historical trends along with emerging technologies.

We also have unique decision-making process that involve professionals integrated with military and defense agency personnel co-facilitating facets of our business, and these teams work with each other to drive our production development programs – and share information in the process.  We also utilize many teams experienced at analyzing much of the data collected by our Air Force and Marine Aviation Groups that are now flying our Aircraft and producing research data and flight information which flows back to our research and development programs that utilized these data streams for process improvements to our aircraft development as we ramp up production to full-rate.   

At the same time as we are managing these complex loads of data, our company as a whole is challenge in dealing with systemic complexity.  Systemic complexity is “created by interactions across multiple system boundaries surrounding a particular decision context” (Kleindorfer, 2005, p. 122).  At Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, our Systemic Complexity is being experienced at every level of our organization.  The systemic complexity problem gets even worse when considering the decisions being made across our aircraft programs, and this is hampered because each one of our aircraft programs is its’ own silo type organization and we are trying to improve our communication across each division.

In terms of citing examples of systemic complexity afflicting the decision-making process being made at the executive levels of our organization.  One prime example is when each time headquarters attempts to make an important decision, they reach out to the different basses to gather feedback on the options and gather various data.  This is a very slow, complex, and cumbersome process.  Another good example is the inability for various Air Force computer or financial systems to connect.  This one of the directors of each aircraft program needs to make decisions that affect the other aircraft programs, and because others are being affected in the process, they have voice concerns that result in our Corporate Management stepping in to alter or take these decisions away from our leadership.

Another prime example of systemic complexity is also demonstrated when it takes our own compliance and legal teams  months or years to change written regulations due the drafting process, job changeovers by compliance personnel, and the need for this compliance through regulations and corporate guidance being rolled out to various teams across our company through various work centers and across global support sites and bases – and each one requires their own feedback and approval during the process.  Not only is Lockheed Martin inundated with the complexity of our own regulations and processes, but we are also governed by external regulations levied by the US Government and US military organizations that we do business with.  We must adhere to many rules and regulations – and our internal regulations must find a symbiotic relationship with the external ones in order for our organization to continue to do business and support our military and government customers.

One way I think this process can be improved in in marrying our internal computer systems with our military counterparts supply chain and research and development system.  By integrating our systems, we ensure that we stay connected in all phases of development of our programs – and we are keeping to the demands our military customers have for our products.  One other possible solution which is working in other organizations is in flattening the organization, where complex decisions once relished at the senior leadership level are flowed down to the lower levels of the organization, and the responsibilities are shared across the organization – also allowing greater buy in to change and adaptation.

In terms of dealing with environmental complexity and multiple stakeholders.  Lockheed Martin Aeronautics deals with large amounts of environmental complexity.  As most of our businesses are dealing with supporting the War Machine, and protecting our countries and the NATO countries, we have a complex amount of global participation in our operations, as well as global customer bases across various programs and systems.

                While my own level within the organization is still in the trenches, many of my own decisions and choices affect our business and our abilities to make profit.  Each buyer on the Mission System Team, commands charge of managing millions of dollars in programs that affect not only our military customers getting the best tools to do their jobs, but also requires adherence to ensuring the integrity of the monies being bore by taxpayers through our government contracts – thus needing ethical considerations as well.

                While the complexity of many business decisions can be assisted with Decision Support Systems, and through complexity of the data driving the business as well as being produce at the same time; each person within our organization has the shared responsibility to ensure their decisions are keeping with our standards and rules that are internal of our culture as well as in compliance with the external rules and regulations that make our process so complex.  We must all being the stakeholder and keep each other accountable in order for our business to grow and thrive in our global marketplace.

References:

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Lombardo, J. (2016, June 6). Decision Making Styles: Directive, Analytical, Conceptual and Behavioral. Retrieved from Study.com: http://study.com/academy/lesson/decision-making-styles-directive-analytical-conceptual-and-behavioral.html

Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2014, September 01). 9 Habits That Lead to Terrible Decisions. Harvard Business Review.

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

This week in MSLD 632, we have been diving into the topic on Framing Tools and we related specific tools that showed correlation to our organization's culture and decision-making processes.  I have deepened my own understanding of how in our decision-making process, we can be limited to making decisions without having a specific toolset that allows us to analyze our problems from different perspectives.  In this blog as well, our authors Shoemaker and Russo discussed the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to guard against it.  I was challenged in finding three ways to avoid "framing traps" and to provide a detailed example of each from my own life experiences.

  

My understanding of frames, as they are discussed in the Wharton text, are a reflection of ourselves. These frames offer a window into both ourselves introspectively, but more importantly how we see the world and those around us.  I liken frames to perceptions or filters of how we view the world around us – and often these can have been based on perceived assumptions that we validated through our unique experiences.  When we get trapped in our frames, it’s like being trapped in a paradigm, with no way of getting around ourselves – in essence, we defeat our own abilities to see things differently. 

Frame traps include frame blindness, the illusion of completeness, overconfidence, and frame conflict.  Frame blindness means that we are unaware of our frames and how they affect how we see the world.  Our internal filters can lead the next trap, the illusion of completeness.  We have fooled ourselves because we only see what we want to see, that we have achieved or not achieved our goals.  With limited awareness, we can become over confident in our view of the world.  All of this results in poor performance and limited chances to improve ourselves (Shoemaker & Russo, 2001).

To avoid the traps that come with frames, leaders should consider the following:

Frame Audit:

See the frame by conducting a frame audit.  It is important to see a frame to be able to change it.  Ways of viewing your frames are to bring them to the surface.  This requires quite a bit of self-reflection.  It means breaking into frames, then breaking them down. Maxwell suggests a good “reality check,” to help understand the difference between what we wish or think is going on and what is in the real world.  He provides a number of techniques to use when employing “realistic thinking.”  These include minimizing downside risks, having a game plan, using it as a catalyst for change, understand how it can provide security, and know that it gives you credibility, finally it is a foundation upon which to build (Maxwell, 2003).  Another piece of the frame audit is understanding the frames of others.  Jen Shirkani explains this as “ignoring feedback you don’t like.”  There isn’t much negative feedback and you make the assumption people are being honest with you.  It includes not asking for feedback as well as rebuffing or ignoring the feedback when it is given.  Finally, the secret thoughts that if people don’t like what you’re doing, “they can go get a job somewhere else” (Shirkani, 2014).  Next, a way of avoiding this trap is to appreciate emerging frames.  This means you know that the environment changes and as a leader can change with that environment (Shoemaker & Russo, 2001).

Identify and Change Inadequate Frames:

The second way to avoid frame traps is to identify and change inadequate frames.  Like doing the frame audit, this requires the leader to look at all of those things in the frame audit and see what needs changing.  These include asking is your frames are effective, finding where frames don’t fit, and recognizing and challenging key assumptions.  The third tool is mastering techniques for reframing (Shoemaker & Russo, 2001).

What this causes us to do it really get outside of our box and consider new ways of looking at our frames.  For example, single frames may be inadequate, so the use of multiple frames may open you to greater environments.  Next is to find ways to align frames with the world around you.  Aligning frames can reduce frame blindness.  Other techniques include changing your metaphors, how you describe your frames, look at and challenge the viewpoints of others, as well as stretching or enlarging a frame, building new frames for new situations, and a show of empathy, speak to other people’s frames.

I have had plenty of chances to work on my frames.  When I was growing up, my father and our family were stationed in Italy.  We lived about 20 miles from the air base and so at times my brother Joel and I would get to spend time on the base, with our friends. We were also allowed to go to Bari or Brindisi (about 55 miles away) with our friends and their families from the base.  At first, my parents were hesitant letting us meander with friends and their families, especially only being 12, and I remember my dad was against it.   My parents fear like most parents were the worry of us disappearing or being kidnapped, but after we had lived there for awhile, my parents learned that these threats were just preconceived fears, as well as they, learned to trust other parents who shared their concerns - and would ensure our safety.   My parents learned to change their ways of thinking.  It turned out to be a great thing, and for my brother and I we developed the ability to be away from our parents for the first time, and my parents learned to trust other military families entrusted with our care.

What changed?  My parents grew up with these fears seeing children kidnapped or worse while growing up, and this issue was compounded more being overseas in a foreign country. By learning to trust others with us, as well as my brother and I learning to be independent of my parents,  My parents frame blindness was pretty severe - they had their own preconceived notions of what constituted safety and they were being pushed out of their comfort zone during these experiences.  As an adult, I have come to understand their apprehensions were pretty reasonable. Come full circle as Tina and I are taking our kids to Italy, Greece, and Turkey over the Thanksgiving Break this year, and I find myself feeling the same apprehensions that my own parents faced, but I have my own understandings and experiences to ensure my two girls see Europe and its' unique cultural experiences, as well as learn to be independent through the process.

I also see how my kids are being raised around IPads, Iphones, Laptop Computers, and now my kids have challenged me to keep up with them with technological toys and software / apps that are enabling them to learn in ways that I didn't.  I have learned to use email and texting as well as other communication mediums for staying in touch and abreast how they are doing in school, as well as how they are communicating with their friends.  The paradigms have changed, and in some cases, I have been ahead of them when it came to the technological edge.  I really think this helped me progress in my leadership skills as well, as I have kept myself ahead of the curve with being a Geek and understanding technology and computers.  My girls are constantly challenging me to think of things in new ways (though I’d always been a bit of an outside of the box thinker).  Just as I learned from my parents to experience other countries and I learned how to appreciate people and their unique cultures by viewing the world from a broader perspective. 

Without knowing it, I too have seen all three parts of the frame avoidance, while expanding my own aperture, to where it remains open and adaptable to change - which is a valued skill that Tina and I work to instill in our two little girls by broadening their international experiences, learn new languages, and understand how they fit into the world around them.  Also, my girls have helped change my styles and perspectives - as parenting girls is vastly different that parenting boys.  I now am very much looking at things to see if my perspective is the right one, or if I have taken other people’s views in to account when making decisions concerning Tina  and my girls.

It’s interesting how much our kids can teach us, especially when as we get older together, as a parent, Tina and I seem to get smarter every year, and we realize that maybe we did understand how our own frames and limitations needed a reboot or adaptation to grow.  Funny how learning from my kids has also opened them up to a better relationship with Tina and I, and it is laying the foundation of trust and understanding that my own parents built with me. It really does crack me up sometimes.

REFERENCES:

Maxwell, J. C. (2003). How Successful People Think, Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life. New Yort, NY: Center Street.

Shirkani, J. (2014). How Top Leaders Beat 8 Ego Traps With Emotional Intelligence, EGO vs. EQ. Brookline, MA: Bibiliomotion.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Managing Frames to Make Better Decisions. In S. J. Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, & R. E. Gunther, Wharton on Making Decisions (pp. 131 - 158). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Sheena Lyengar: 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 own decision-making as an individual and a member of an organization. How else can you improve your ability to decide? What are the impacts if it is a mistake?

CUT:

Iyengar is a big proponent of the old adage “less is more”. She explains that companies need to cut extraneous, redundant items. By doing this, companies can increase profits and sales while lowering costs. Iyengar shows the practical benefits of cutting through several brands that cut the amount of products offered and how they either increased sales or decreased costs while increasing their overall profitability. She makes an interesting point about the difference in the number of products a super market, Wal-Mart, and Aldi offers. I know several friends and family who prefer shopping at Aldi. I have never asked them the reason they prefer this store, but it would be interesting to hear their responses. By eliminating the number of choices presented, Iyengar shows how consumers will be more likely to make a choice. In a similar video, Barry Schwartz discusses the paralysis of too many choices. In the video “The Paradox of Choice”, Schwartz offers almost identical information. They both reference financial decisions, but Schwartz’s example of health care decisions really shows the importance of getting people to make decisions. In order to make decision making easier, the number of choices needs to be reduced.

Concretization:

Iyengar says that we need to “make it [decisions] vivid.” 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. Her example of debit/credit purchase is spot on. These types of purchases are 15-30% more than cash purchases because it doesn’t feel like “real” money. From personal experience, I know exactly what she’s talking about. Seeing $100 on a screen is very different from handing a cashier a $100 dollar bill. While it’s still $100 that is being spent, the idea of something being “real” versus “perceived” is a great point. In order to help people make decisions, we need to make things feel “real".

Categorization:

Iyengar shows that people can handle more categories than choices. While having too many choices can be paralyzing, by organization those choices into categories makes the customer feel as if they have a better decision making experience. It is interesting that even though too many choices can deter the decision making process, having more categories enhances it. Iyengar uses the example of a magazine aisle. Once again, this is something that we can easily relate to. We see the magazine aisles and how crazy they can be. But when they are sectioned into categories, we can easily search for the category we want and then select a magazine. The last point Iyengar makes is that categories need to say something to the chooser, not the choice maker. While categories can be a great tool to help us make decisions, categories need to actually matter to the once who is choosing.

Condition for complexity:

Iyengar suggests that we are able to handle a lot of information better than we think we can. Instead of bombarding a person with too many choices in the beginning, we need to ease people into decision making. She uses the example of purchasing a car. The car manufacturer allows customization of almost every part, from car color (56 choices) to gear shift (4 choices). In her study, she found that if people started with the choice with the most choices, people were unlikely to make a decision and just choose the “default.” However, if people started with the choice with the least amount of choices, they are far more likely to keep trying to make decisions. If the choices start off easy, then people are learning how to make a decision and will be more likely to make decisions.

I am a huge fan of cutting the number of choices for the decisions we make, more so when my two girls think those choices are McDonalds or Chucky Cheese. Have you ever had this conversation?

“What do you want for supper?”

“I don’t care, you decide.”

“What are my choices?”

“Just pick something!”

While this is a semi-silly example, it illustrates how having so many choices before us can make us unwilling to make a decision. We could eat out or at home. We could eat Mexican food, Italian food, Chinese Food, etc. At my house, we play a game with our girls. Tina and I pick three restaurants a piece. We each get to veto until we narrow it down to one each. Then we make the decision from those two choices. This illustrates how narrowing down our choices helps us our make decisions.

The second technique that I would like to use more is concretization. We often make decisions at work that have no immediate impact or consequence. For example, we recently made a decision to not include a module in our first release. We vetted it with our leadership and stakeholders and everyone agreed. However, at our last demo, our stakeholders brought it back up stating that they couldn’t use the application without that functionality. They made a decision, but the impact of that decision was not evident until much later in the process. Had we made the decision more concrete and made it more vivid the consequences of not including that functionality, we might have put our stakeholders in a better position to make the best choice.

One additional item that Schwartz talks about is making decisions with the “opportunity cost” in mind. This deals with the idea that the decision we made wasn’t the best and the other options were better. This can cause us to continually question our decisions and the what-ifs. While I’m a big proponent of lessons learned, we must be careful that we don’t live in the past always afraid that we made the wrong decisions. A manager once told me that making no decision is worse than making the wrong decision. This is a very profound statement that helps me realize that while decisions shouldn’t be taken lightly, we must be able and willing to make choices and move forward. Even if it’s the wrong decision, we learn and go forward. These lessons help us with our intuition and future decisions. In the words of Iyengar, “We need to be choosy about choosing.”

References:

Iyengar, S. (2012). How to make choosing easier [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose/transcript?language=en

Schwartz, B. (2006). The paradox of choice [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice/transcript?language=en

 

 

 

A632.1.4.RB - Multistage Decision-Making

As a Subcontract Administrator and Buyer within the Supply Chain Efforts at Lockheed Martin, I am expected to utilize various compliance and Federal Acquisition Regulations along with internal company guidelines to consistently make rational and beneficial decisions that are in the best interest of the company where I work.  I am faced with daily challenges to selecting the best option of several choices which are all critical to the success of our aircraft production efforts as well as to the success of my own efforts towards a position in management.  In our Textbook, Wharton (2001) discusses various techniques of determining the best approach for selecting the best option in our abilities for making our decisions. 

Chapter 3 reveals several ways in which researchers solve multistage problems by applying formulas which discernibly produce the greatest chance of success.  I found a sense of agreement with the dynamic programming method explained in the text.  There are some industries and fields where this type of decision making might seem common practice and there are often industries or field where this type of methodical and systematic approach could stifle decision-making processes based on creative efforts and brainstorming type tools. In these non-structured environments, one might feel lost just looking at the equations involved with this process.

My own decision-making style is different depending on the environment where my decisions take place.  I evaluate the criteria of the processes of my decisions based on the rules required and my own personal or professional experiences versus solely evaluating based on my best guess and experience I might need to follow making choices at home. At work, while I enjoy using data and calculating risk and factors to make the best choices in my purchasing contracts and during supplier fact finds and negotiations, I like to have some variability and flexibility in my decisions when dealing with multistage decision-making.  I feel that too many variables play a part in these type of critical decisions and very few things stay constant – one key ingredient is the power of flexibility.  It appears that dynamic programming counts on the future to be constantly predictable, when in the modern era, stimulus's are ever-changing and fluid.

Prominently, dynamic programming motivates members to approach decision-making practices differently and tap into areas that may not get as much consideration when planning.  Since “there is no one right answer” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p.40) or method, I believe there are a lot of managers out there that use a form of similar computation but label it differently.  It stands to reason, due the factors involved with dynamic programming, it would be more effective on business decisions rather than personal decisions – especially when the human elements must be taken into consideration.

 

For this very reason, the values we place on certain things and events cannot be taken into consideration when using this type of tool.  I believe the long-term effects on planning compliment business aims, as they take probability and risk into account, and the answers to questions could be simplified as long as these numbers are accurate.  Although, “dynamic programming is a powerful tool” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p.42); honestly, I feel that this practice wouldn't enhance my decision-making process because of the emphasis that I place on flexibility and using experience and intuition as drivers.  I take decisions one step at a time in my personal life and use other calculations and ethical and regulatory considerations when planning and making decisions in my professional environments.

I too find myself deep diving problems and spending too much time on my accumulation of key bits of knowledge, as outlined in the reading.  Also, I don't really know that I have any concrete decision-oriented practices.  Most frequently, I tend to research all options available to me and consider their results (i.e. dynamic decision making) before making a choice.  Other times, I tend to make decisions impulsively – as I have this innate ability to “fly by the seat of my pants,” but less now being a husband and father to two girls – where this type of decision making affects more than me.  As you can see, my methodologies fluctuate (ADD in conflict with Tina’s Structural Approaches).  Occasionally, I do develop what I think of as “tunnel vision” or as I have come to learn as Kanter’s “zooming in” when pursuing an assigned task or special project, and I think Wharton's text would also consider this myopia. (Kanter, 2011)   I become so focused on a single task that it is at the risk of neglect of another task – and some of these task being of greater importance or need.  If I did consider the formulas and kept long-term values in mind for the results I wish to attain, then my decision-making process might also be improved.

I truly believe that no one is born a great decision-maker, yet learning the techniques offered in our text and through the culmination of years of professional and personal experiences; we can become formable decision-makers.  Our video this week was another one of those TED Talk “aha” moments when Daniel Gilbert was talking about Bernoulli’s Equation on how we leverage the ability to gain something with the value that it will give us as the expected value of the decisions we make. (Gilbert, 2005) I too found myself agreeing with another student in this weeks DQ’s post when Terrance Le Shore shared the value  of understanding how to make good decisions should be something we learn at a younger age, as it might save us from a lifetime of regret on the bad choices we have made. While it might seem like this would be a game changer, many of us are given the right information from our parents or adult influencers, and we still make a bad choice.  I think in reality as we learn from our decisions (good or bad) we would miss the opportunities of developing our Emotional Intelligence by missing out on these life-affecting decisions.

I am coming to believe that Optimal dynamic decision analysis might be the most efficient method for decision making (at least for me) because it does consider the present facts of the case but not at the neglect of future outcomes.  They are analyzed in relation to one another and their interconnectedness is always at the forefront.  With these thoughts in mind, I would like to utilize this method more frequently.  It will allow me to continue to be goal-oriented but not at the expense of inaction.  I'll know how my current choices align with future outcomes, and this will allow me to make better decisions in the present.  Of course I am also blessed with being balanced in life with Tina, my wife as we complement each other in the same way that we have come to understand each other’s abilities and opportunities for improvement, which at times keeps me from making a bad choice, and at times helps her make choices with considerations outside of the box. 

Reference:

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

Kanter, R. M. (2011, March 29). Zooming: How Effective Leaders Adjust Their Focus. Retrieved February 03, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saNj6B0Vasw

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.