A632.9.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Role of Emotion in Decision Making

Here it is – my final blog before the holiday break! I would like to wish each of you the warmest and happiest of holiday seasons and specifically a very merry Christmas!

In a speech at Stanford University, Professor Baba Shiv discussed the role that emotion plays in the decision making process (Stanford, 2011). He argues that emotion is crucial in resolving decision conflicts. Historically speaking, many experts treat over-confidence as a pitfall as it tends to lead to information biases. Professor Shiv, however, counters that with three major points. First, he argues that passion is persuasive. Second, confidence is contagious. Third and most important, there is a great extraction of utility from experiences when coupled with confidence. In addition to these three benefits, he also notes that “emotion is what leads decisions with conviction” (1:09). Confidence, therefore, allows decision makers to act swiftly and firmly.

As a recruiter for the Army, part of what I do is guide young men and women through a life-altering decision. Though the decision is theirs to make, I, too, once made the same decision to enlist into the U.S. Army. When I counsel these young men and women on their options, confidence is absolutely essential. Professor Shiv’s three points fit perfectly with my interviews. First, my confidence in my own decision leads to a great passion with my discussion with my applicants. When they see this passion in me – a real fire – they are persuaded that it is the right decision. (As a side note, if it is clear that the Army is not a good fit for an individual, I am very forward with them. However, I do believe that most people that walk into my office can benefit in some way from service.) My confidence in my own success also leads them to see that they, too, can be successful and they catch that same drive. But, hitting on the third point, I extract the utility from the experience only because it is genuine. Yes, there have been many trials but my confidence in my own enlistment and service experience causes me to highlight the positive! Service in the Army has been one of the greatest thrills of my life to this point which is why I have been successful as a recruiter.

Of course, I have not been so confident in every decision that I have made in my life. A few years back, I made a calculated decision to broaden my horizons a little. I grew up in a house full of music and decided that I wanted to learn to emulate my mother and learn to play the piano. However, I had serious doubts about my ability to complete the undertaking at the time. After about three months of self-deliberation, I made the decision to go ahead and take the plunge. I spent about $4,500 on a brand new piano and found a local piano teacher. I thought that I could convince myself that if I just made the investment that I would gain a sincere desire to learn how to play. After a couple of months, though, I still had serious doubts about if I made the right decision. I didn’t have a passion for the instrument and I didn’t really think that I would ever be able to actually master the beast. Every time I would look at that piano, a pure sense of dread fell over me because I didn’t believe that I could actually do it. After a couple of years of having the piano, I was only on what I would consider to be an amateur level. Fortunately, an amazing opportunity eventually presented itself in where our church was looking for a new piano so I just donated it. (Oddly enough, I am now at the point to where I have a true desire to learn how to master the piano and I have been through so much in my life that it seems like it would be a piece of cake now. When I retire in a year and a half, I have firmly decided to invest in a nice keyboard and take lessons. I have the confidence now that I lacked before.)

As I reflect on some of the other decisions that I have made both professional and personally, I can see where I made decisions with confidence and where I lacked confidence. Honestly, there have been times that I lacked confidence, though, but I was able to at least “fake it until I made it”. Even a false confidence can be contagious.

[Stanford]. (2011, November 7). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making. [Video file].

            Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.4.RB_LeeDarrell - Cynefin Framework Reflection

Last week, I made a comment about the topic of conflict resolution through collaboration beginning to seem repetitive as we had multiple assignments spanning two weeks on it. This week, our assignments were really seeming to go beyond repetitive to me as this blog is my 4^th assignment of the week on the exact same topic. As I said last week, though, that tells me that the topic is important. Since we are creatures of habit, we learn through repetition. However, I have to admit that tonight I finally had my “Eureka!” moment with the topic and I feel that I finally have a basic working knowledge of the Cynefin framework. (By the way, that is Welsh and is pronounced ‘kun-EV-in’.)

As I said, I finally had that “Ah ha!” moment tonight. I know that I didn’t go into great detail explaining the Cynefin framework in my last blog but the video linked in my references is an explanation right from the mouth of the creator of the model, Dave Snowden. The Cynefin framework is NOT a categorization model but rather is a sense-making model (Cognitive Edge, 2010). Snowden explains that in categorization models, the framework proceeds the data. That means that as the data arises, you can just drop it into the appropriate “box” and know what to do with it accordingly. Snowden states that “categorization is good for exploitation. It’s pretty poor for exploration or during periods of change” (1:35). In a sense-making model, though, the data actually precedes the framework. I have been writing about the importance of recognizing where you are in the framework (mostly to avoid the decision making pitfalls associated with each realm of the model) but I truly have been looking at it through the lens of categorization. In other words, I have been thinking about it as looking at each decision and saying, “Okay. Here is the relationship between cause and effect so we must be in this context or that so I need to avoid making these mistakes with my decision making”. That’s really not how it works, though. There is a fifth space that doesn’t really fit the other contexts (known/simple, knowable/complicated, complex, chaotic) and that is a context of disorder. This is where we actually operate most of the time. Snowden notes that when we are here, “the trouble, then, is that we will interpret the situation according to our personal preference for action” (5:33). I’m finding it difficult to find the right words to express this but I think that when we are in that realm of disorder – where we don’t know the context – we tend to try to categorize. We try to make the situation fit into one of the contexts and we therefore run the risk of miscategorization. That realization has really made me change the way that I view this framework. It’s a minor difference in thinking that makes a major change in our approach to and application of the model.

As previously outlined, the Cynefin framework is broken into four main realms (not quadrants) – simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Just as a recap, in the simple context, the relationship between cause and effect is known and the right decision is usually obvious. In the complicated context, that relationship is a little harder to see but there is a right decision – often multiple right decisions – that can be discovered through expert analysis. In the complex context, the relationship between cause and effect can only be seen in hindsight. Then, in the chaotic context, it is impossible to see the relationship between cause and effect and decisions are made to restore order.

There are three ways that the Cynefin framework help leaders facilitate their decision making process (Cognitive Edge, 2010). They first allow us to see things from new viewpoints. Since the data precedes the framework, we are not just trying to categorize the situations but rather begin to look at each situation as it arises and try to move ourselves to the proper frame of dealing with that situation. Over time, though, as the relationship between cause and effect becomes more evident, the way that we deal with the same situation can actually change. That is why we can’t just try to categorize each scenario because the same situation with the same variables can actually move from unknown to known and then we are operating in a different frame. Of course, the danger is that we may choose to default to a preferred methodology but the idea is to adjust our own approach to decision making to fit each situation. Second, the Cynefin framework helps us assimilate complex concepts. Since the relationship between cause and effect is observable, we are able to probe and adjust our methods as needed. Ultimately, the idea is to handle situations from a knowable context. As I just mentioned, that doesn’t mean that the situation itself will change. It just means that we can learn the actual relationship between cause and effect. Third, the framework allows us to address real-world problems and seize upon new opportunities. This is not just a hypothetical categorization tool but rather is a true tool that can be used for knowledge management.

As I didn’t know about the Cynefin framework before this week, it is difficult to claim that I ever truly applied it. I can think of instances that I unknowingly operated in each context but I am dealing with a situation at work right now where I am actively trying to apply this framework. I am preparing to move to another center to take over as the Center Leader there. In order for me to move, though, I first needed a replacement so a new Center Leader has taken over my center. I am still available to guide and train him but I have taken a step back and am letting him run the center as he sees fit. However, in a very odd turn of events, he was notified on the day that he arrived that his conversion to full-time recruiter has been denied by the Human Resources Command and that means that he is going to have to return to an operational unit within the next five months or so. This is a very confusing time for everybody on the team as “the boss” (me) relinquished control but the new boss is about to leave so my new center may end up being the same center where I already am. I really feel that we are operating in a complex context right now. This is new territory for all of us. The nature of the effect of the decisions that both he and I are making right now are really unknow because we don’t know what leadership structure will be in place five months from now. However, we are probing and observing. If a decision is received positively, we are pushing is harder. For decisions that the team seems to reject, we are able to stifle them quickly. Once the relationship between cause and effect is better known, perhaps we can continue to move to a more comfortable and knowable context. Only time will tell. In the meantime, we just have to be patient, observe, and be prepared for the next decision.

[Cognitive Edge]. (2010, July 11). The Cynefin Framework. [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be

Snowden, D.J., & Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making.

A632.8.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

The Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007) is a knowledge management tool that decision makers use to help determine the relationship between cause and effect. It is a model that is broken into four main quadrants that define the context of the nature of that relationship (between cause and effect). The four contexts are known/simple, knowable/complicated, complex, and chaotic. (My discussion blog and general assignment paper that I wrote this week were both between 1,500 and 2,000 words so I will just give the condensed version here of what each means.) In the known space, the relationship between cause and effect is obvious so the correct decision is typically undisputed. In the knowable context, there are often multiple right decisions and the relationship between cause and effect is not always clear but, through data analysis and careful calculations, can still be determined. “This is the domain of experts, whose expertise enables us to manage by delegation without the need for categorization” (Snowden, 2002, p. 106-107). My friends that are in the wealth management/financial analysis business make most of their decisions in this context. The third context is complex (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Here, the effects of our decisions often cannot be known until after they have been made. We can only observe the results in retrospect. At that point, it becomes clear what the relationship between cause and effect was so we can apply those lessons learned and a repeat of the same situation will actually be in the knowable/complicated context. The final context is chaotic which is when a catastrophic event has taken place and it is impossible to determine the cause of anything and all decisions made in order to simply restore a basic level or order. For example, December 7, 1941 – 75 years ago today – was a catastrophic event for our nation. All political decisions immediately after were made to attempt to recover.     

After writing two other assignments on this, I was really thinking to myself – how does this really help a leader make a proper decision? Just understanding the context in which a decision is made doesn’t seem to affect what decision is actually made. But remember – this is a knowledge management tool. Understanding the context does actually help us navigate that knowledge and make proper decisions by allowing us to avoid common pitfalls. Below are what I consider to be the five most critical of those common mistakes as highlighted by Snowden and Boone (2007).

1. When we operating within the known realm – where the relationship is obvious between cause and effect – we have a tendency to become very entrained in our thinking. This means that we see the same type of scenario over and over and our response to it becomes conditioned. When we make decisions the way that we have always made them, we run the risk of lost efficiency. Just because something works doesn’t mean that it is the best option. Just as a simple example of this, I had to dispatch one of my recruiters to a courthouse in Brooklyn today. To get there, he always walks over three blocks and catches the train there. He has been going that way for 2 ½ years and that train does indeed take him to the right courthouse in Brooklyn. However, it isn’t the most efficient way. I pointed out that he could walk a block less if he went the other direction and catch a different train that actually had one stop less along the way and end at the same station (plus all of the stations along that route have cell service in the stations so it is easier to keep yourself entertained along the way).

2. This entrained thinking can also lead to another pitfall within the known context – complacency. We run a severe risk of becoming so comfortable with our decisions that we don’t even notice any minor changes that can lead to consequences, often extreme.

3. When we are working within the knowable/complicated context, we are usually relying on expert data analysis. A major concern here actually has to do with the egos of those experts. It is very possible to hit what could be described as “analysis paralysis”. This is very closely related to entrained thinking but rather than the decision maker it is the expert that is so set in his or her ways that they refuse to entertain other options. We sure see this in politics all the time! Committees and think tanks full of highly educated people spend countless hours and resources studying problems and come up with opposite solutions and it is like they are sticking their fingers in their ears saying “la la la la la, I can’t HEAR you!” to the other side.

4. When we move into the complex context, we know that the relationship between cause and effect may be impossible to tell until after decisions have been made. We have to be patient and wait and see. The main threat here is to fall back into a command-and-control state of mind. In other words, we run the risk of slipping into a state of micromanagement thus losing faith and effectiveness. We “demand fail-safe business plans with defined outcomes” (p. 8) but there may not be a fail-safe plan and it can be impossible to determine exact results.

5. Finally, when we move into a context of chaos – when catastrophe has struck – we run one of the most serious risks of all and that is stifling the emergence of new and ingenious leadership. The chaotic context is often where the most creativity is involved in decision making because every decision is made in a struggle to restore some form of order. How silly and petty of us to let our egos prevent the rise of new leaders yet it happens all the time! Of course, when those new leaders do arise, they have a major risk of their own and that is an overconfidence in their abilities. Just because they have the answer for restoring order to chaos does not guarantee that their decision making will be optimal during times of normalcy.

When I first arrived at my current assignment. I was excited about my new opportunity to move into a management role. I moved out of the Times Square office to the Downtown Manhattan office to be the Assistant Center Leader and I was going to be training under one of the top Center Leaders that had just arrived from the Nashville Battalion. Imagine my surprise when after my first day of training – a process that it supposed to take three to six months – my Center Leader had a death in his immediate family and had to have a compassionate reassignment. This, to me, as a time of complete chaos. I am grateful that I still had a leadership team that understood this and allowed me to find my own way. They allowed me to make mistakes but also to thrive as I moved my center back to at least a complex context. Unfortunately, once there, I didn’t know how to identify the different contexts and I fell right into the pitfall of moving into a command-and-control state where I demanded plans and results that just were not possible to determine. I wanted to have my hand in everything and, by doing so, I did am immense level of damage to the trust that my team had in me that took several months to restore.

“Truly adept leaders will know not only how to identify the context they’re working in at any given time but also how to change their behavior and their decisions to match that context” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 10). That ultimately is why it is so important to understand how the Cynefin framework works.

Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal

of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100-111. doi:10.1108/13673270210424639

Snowden, D.J., & Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-

decision-making.

A632.7.3RB_LeeDarrell - Collaborative Decision Making

As we continue to discuss conflict resolution in this class, I am having a harder and harder time coming up professional examples from my own life. Since I enlisted in the military right out of high school, I have no professional experience outside of that structured environment. Sure, when I was a kid I had a part time summer job but I don’t think that one could really consider being a teenage ride operator at the local amusement park as a true professional experience. Oh, I also worked as a pizza delivery driver for about six weeks one summer but I can’t say that I experienced much conflict there. Obviously, there is indeed conflict within the military but I still think that it is different from what I would experience in another organization as lawful orders must be followed. What I am finding, though, is that everything that we are discussing in the class applies not just to the professional environment but to our personal lives as well. For the most part, I am a pretty passive guy. I have no qualms with engaging in close combat with the enemy on the battlefield but I hate interpersonal conflict so I tend to go out of my way to avoid it usually but, as has been established, conflict is natural and unavoidable. For the topic of this blog, I have therefore chosen an example from my personal life. The topic this week continues on one of the key topics from previous weeks – collaboration. When we continue to have discussion after discussion on the same topic, though it may sometimes begin to seem repetitive, it tells me one thing – it is important. A couple of my friends that are kind enough to bear with me and faithfully read my blog to encourage me through the process of this degree are most certainly going to recognize this story of our collaboration!

Before I became a recruiter, I was a paratrooper with the 5^th Special Forces Group (Airborne) out of Ft. Campbell, KY. I lived in a little city near there called Hopkinsville, KY. Though I had my Army buddies, my absolute best friends were friends that I met in the Hopkinsville Running Group (HRG). We did a run every Saturday morning and Wednesday evening but we spent a significant amount of time together outside of that so, after a few years, the bonds between us were (and still are) quite strong. We had a friendly rivalry with our sister running group one city over, the Clarksville Running Group. Since Clarksville is a decent sized city, their group was quite a bit larger than ours. Whereas we averaged six or seven on any given run, they averaged about twenty. (When I moved to NYC, I ended up trying to run with the NY Roadrunners but there are 66,000 members!) There is a huge relay race that takes place in Kentucky called the Bourbon Chase. Running in that race is one of the most exciting and rewarding experiences. Unfortunately, the HRG didn’t have enough participants to have our own team. We had to collaborate and partner with the Clarksville group in order to gain entry. Unfortunately, a few conflicts came with that partnership. Logistics became a nightmare. We had to figure out who could be on the team and who couldn’t (which was the biggest conflict), transportation, accommodations, etc. We couldn’t just consider ourselves in the process. We truly had to consider other stakeholders to effectively resolve the conflicts and participate in the most amazing relay race ever! (And yes, you do get to drink bourbon during the race after each leg.)

During conflict resolution, I have identified five ways that stakeholder involvement can help us make better decisions and show how they applied here. (This is my own personal list.) First, other stakeholders can identify additional conflicts that we otherwise probably would have overlooked. One of the runners with the HRG is a journalist so, in the planning phase, he asked how we were planning to document the event. Though documentation itself may not be a conflict, not documenting it would have resulted in regret for all, I believe. Instead of us all ending the event with just our memories, the event is now forever archived in the Kentucky New Era newspaper. (That journalist went on to work for Condé Nast, by the way.) Second, stakeholders can identify alternatives. Our plan originally was to rent a couple of vans and a trailer for the group. One of the wives of one of the members of the Clarksville group, however, came up with an excellent idea. Instead of just renting two vans and a trailer, she recommended that we forego the trailer and use their motorhome for both luggage storage and a functional bathroom for the trip. Third, collaborating with stakeholders can result in shared responsibility for burdens of implementation of a plan. In this case, not only did we split costs, we also visited local businesses soliciting sponsorships. We managed to find a sponsor that was willing to pay all entry fees for participants so long as the CEO of the company was allowed to become a team member. (He has since officially joined the HRG.) That is actually a nice segue to my fourth point – collaboration with stakeholders leads to increased production. With his contribution, we were able to afford to increase our team size from 12 to 14. We previously had an “odd man out” situation as you have to have an even number of participants. Last and perhaps most important, collaboration with stakeholders results in the opportunity for future collaboration on other projects. Though I am here in NYC now, the two groups are in Memphis, TN right now preparing to run in the St. Jude Marathon this weekend and have managed to raise an astounding $8,700 in addition to having their entire trip funded!

Looking back on this, I do regret not involving more people. I think that we could have benefitted from the additional of a publicist and a CPA as we most likely could have written off the expenditures that we did incur. However, those are lessons that I can take forward with me in the future. That aside, there are three things that I really learned from all of this.

1.      Never underestimate the power of partnerships. (Through our partnerships, we had increased comfort as well as a well documented experience.)

2.      Never be afraid to ask for help. (Had we not asked, one of our teammates would have missed out and our overall costs would have been much higher.)

3.      Always seek to repeat successful collaborations for future events.

I am proud to continue my partnership with the HRG. I will admit that the Bourbon Chase Relay example doesn’t seem like much of a conflict but I am sure that you can see the parallels and how my personally identified five advantages to collaboration with stakeholders can benefit all during both personal and professional conflict resolution.