A lot of week four’s lecture resonated with me when reflecting on the
personal decision making styles and especially the bias that can affect the way
we approach decision making. I
could think of specific examples where staff have framed the information they
have given me to increase the chance that I will make the decision they are
hoping for. For example, recently
before we were to discuss moving a member of staff to another team to assist
another manager, the present staff member’s manger told me about the challenging
personal issues the worker had that would have made the move difficult. The manager also highlighted their
loyal and consistent service. It
was obvious the manager did not want to lose the worker and the way the information
was framed made me think about a number of other staff we could move to leave the
staff member in their current position.
I slept on the decision over night and with a bit more reflection, felt
it was still more efficient and productive to move the staff member.
I was also able to recognise times when I use mental models to create
normality. I can see that I use
this tool in times when I have to make quick, programmed decisions as they help
me make sense of things based on past experiences and assumptions. Unfortunately I have made some bad
decisions based on ‘gut feeling’ and intuition that I have tried to post
rationalise with limited success.
Recently I had to make a decision at work regarding reducing the number
of pool vehicles available to three different programs across our drug and
alcohol service. I knew that although
the three cars were not being fully utilised, a reduction of a whole vehicle could
potentially affect all three program’s ability to provide outreach to
clients.
Although I was to make the ultimate decision, I did not feel comfortable
making a decision without consultation with the teams who my decision would
affect. Before the meeting I was provided with data that suggested all services
would have to reduce outreach work by up to 30%. I quickly realised this information was anchoring my decision-making
process and I decided to look into the how the statistics were formulated. One of the workers had simply assumed
they would only have access to a car 70% of the time and then ascribed his
programs findings to the other two.
Although I knew any decision to reduce resources would not be popular, I
was also being primed by my Manager, who clearly wanted to reduce
expenditure.
I held a meeting with all the teams were I started by informing everyone
that I needed to reduce expenditure, but wanted to listen to their ideas about
how we could do this. I gave them
two days to thinks about strategies and then we met again, where teams
presented ideas. What resulted was
strategies were communication processes were improved and teams planned their
outreach in consultation with each other.
We were able to reduce the car pool by one car, with an understanding
that they could utilise my company car within working hours if required. The teams have also generated cost
saving ideas regarding stationary, utilising casual staff and sharing resources
between each other. These ideas
were implemented and shared with other State Offices as an example of
consultative/ collaborative decision-making.
As I missed attending the lecture last week, I would like to address the
group discussion questions myself.
“Group Think” distortions disturb me the most due to being a worker who
really enjoys working collaboratively.
As a senior manager, I am also aware that my presence in groups can
intimidate other workers and stop them from fully engaging in the process. My opinions can also influence the
group and sway discussions, as some workers may not want to be seen to disagree
with me.
To try and overcome these issues, I will reframe from giving my opinions
in the initial group meetings unless asked and then sometimes I will still not
provide my opinion in the forum and usually wait for the next meeting. I make sure that everyone can see that
I am actively listening and will encourage quieter team members. I will also respectively manage group
members who may be overtaking group discussions. I often make myself the scribe, so I can explore people’s
ideas as I record them and engage them to explain their ideas fully. I also explain all these strategies
openly at the start of the process so staff know I am not taking part for a
reason and am really encouraging them to provide me with their ideas.
And just quickly, two strategies I have used to minimise groupthink are:
- · Bringing in an outsider to play devils advocate and question assumptions.
- · Ask the group to come up with two different solutions that they have to present and argue for equally.
Have a great week!
Shaun
Hi Shaun,
ReplyDeleteI can certainly relate to the difficulty of making decisions relating to costs that impact on staff members current work practices. Having worked in not for profit for about 15 years I understand the importance of engaging with people to do the work and not just focussing on the bottom line.
Having read through some of the distortion issues of group thinking I wonder if you would have gone through the same process of finding solutions for the car pooling issue? It’s a difficult balance at times for us as we manage people and endeavour to be consultative but have a responsibility to the organisations success and are in the position to make the decisions.
I recognise this challenge of restricting the groups from giving real and personal opinions due to the senior manager’s presence. Do you think that your passive approach in this context (though for very valid reasons) can hinder the groups effectiveness to reach the goal? A podcast I listened to about meetings once said that it’s important to have the right people in the room and not just structurally the right people (ie. subordinates). I think we should continue to encourage everyone to have a voice but we also need to have the right people in the room at the time when we need their voice.
Enjoyed the read!
Michael
Hello Michael,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. They are very useful. Can you add me to your circles so I can review your posts as well?
regards,
Shaun
Hello, Shaun! I enjoyed reading your blog because, in my opinion, it was very reflective and it is obvious that this topic is one of the important ones at your workplace.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the part about ‘bad decisions which were made basing on the gut feeling’ wanted to encourage you that consciousness in terms of separating gut feeling decisions from the rational ones, based on System 2, is one of the most essential steps (especially, according to the article ‘Managers and their Not-so-Rational decisions http://people.tamu.edu/~ltihanyi/MandecBH.pdf).
I liked your decision about organising a follow-up meeting (for which you gave the teams a certain time limit to come up with the new ideas) – the strategy reminded me Delphi techniques where you have two rounds of opinion gathering – the initial one and after a discussion/debate.
Also your blog was well-structured, with separate information about personal and group decision making biases. The conclusion was easy to follow and the second part of the blog reminded me a report according to the structure because of professional terms and clear suggestions about the solutions of the problem.
Hi Shaun!
ReplyDeleteThis is a great blog and I like the flow, it is interesting to read.
I like the way you dont allow the decision making bias affect your decisions by acting on them as they arise. For example when faced with framing, you decided to sleep on it, on anchoring, you decided to check how statistics were formulated....and allowed your team more time to think!
One of the main solution to reduce these distortions, in my opinion, is recognizing there is bias and act on them as they arise, although it is not always easy to do so.
That was a great read!
Hello Paul,
ReplyDeleteI commented on Russell's for TASK 3
http://russhum3z.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/task-3-decision-making-issues.html