Session C202, Rebecca Jones (Dysart & Jones Associates) & Deb Wallace (Harvard Business School), look at the basics of critical thinking, the difference this productive dialogue has on decision-making & how HBS Baker Library uses this approach.
40. Bazerman, Max, and D. Moore. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. 7th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2008.
41. Milkman, Katherine L., Max H. Bazerman, and Dolly Chugh. "How Can Decision Making Be Improved?" Perspectives on Psychological Science (in press). Abstract
42. Raiffa, Howard, John S. Hammond, and Ralph L. Keeney. "The Hidden Traps in Decision Making." HBR Classic. Harvard Business Review 84, no. 1 (January 2006).
43.
Editor's Notes
We all get stuck in our ways – we do, & our organizations do….
It demonstrates clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
Is there anything more costly for our organizations? our customers? our careers? us?
In fact I would go so far as to say our whole profession is dependent on our ability to demonstrate and teach critical thinking.
Organizations, like people, can get set in their ways. Relying on established ways of working and solving problems not only stifles innovation but can lead to a lack of perspective and moments of delusion. Here are three ways to help your organization snap out of unhelpful patterns: Challenge rationalizations. Every organization has shared explanations for doing things the way they do. Poke holes in those rationalizations and ask the question: why is this standard practice?Expose faulty either/or thinking. False dichotomies can set up irrational choices about how to work. Don't let A or B be the only options, propose C or D as a new way of working.Focus on the long-term. Emphasis on the short term can trap you into current practice. Help your colleagues pull back, see the big picture, and understand not only short-term gains but long-term consequences.Today's Management Tip was adapted from "Keeping Your Colleagues Honest" by Mary C. Gentile.
Framing – SHOULD occur at the outset of the problem-solving or decision-making – cuz it is all about defining the question that needs to be addressed – framing the task and the process – answer How am I framing this? Are there other ways to frame it? Is our frame shaping our solution? Is a win/win frame possible?
Anchoring – the order in which we receive information can distort our judgment. Important to be conscious of your anchors and avoid letting irrelevant anchors distort your judgment. Ask – what are we focusing on? What others should we be considering? Example:
Sunk cost fallacy – a rational decision considers only current assets (no wishful thinking) and is based on future consequences, respects laws of probability when consequences are uncertain.
These two basic dimensions of behavior define five different modes for responding to conflict situations:Competing is assertive and uncooperative -- an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person's expense. This is a power-oriented mode in which you use whatever power seems appropriate to win your own position -- your ability to argue, your rank, or economic sanctions. Competing means "standing up for your rights," defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative -- the complete opposite of competing. When accommodating, the individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person's order when you would prefer not to, or yielding to another's point of view.Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative -- the person neither pursues his own concerns nor those of the other individual. Thus he does not deal with the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative -- the complete opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with others to find some solution that fully satisfies their concerns. It means digging into an issue to pinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two individuals. Collaborating between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other's insights or trying to find a creative solution to an interpersonal problem.Compromising is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. It falls intermediate between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but does not explore it in as much depth as collaborating. In some situations, compromising might mean splitting the difference between the two positions, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground solution. Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes. None of us can be characterized as having a single style of dealing with conflict. But certain people use some modes better than others and, therefore, tend to rely on those modes more heavily than others -- whether because of temperament or practice. Your conflict behavior in the workplace is therefore a result of both your personal predispositions and the requirements of the situation in which you find yourself. The Conflict Mode Instrument is designed to measure this mix of conflict-handling modes.
Integration – didn’t exist until FY07. Integration projection for FY10 – limited by resources for Develop and Revise (Develop – 500 hours) mainly Enhance projects projected. Course support – 18 Professors, 2 PMP, 7 Senior Lecturers, 2 Assoc, 2 Assistants, 1 Adjunct, 1 Visiting Professor.Organize the School’s priority information - IM – 2800 records, Leadership website – 4, Exec Ed (Program Finder) – 1756, Exec Ed Topics – 4193, American Capitalism – 1405, Agribusiness – 120, Economic Crisis – 238; Centennial assets catalog – 175. Web services – FY09 – 1 Intranet (Collaboration, MySites, Departmental sites); iTRAC – 3 projects; Maintenance – 50+, Other (Web) – 20; Most work for Marketing (1615 hours); KLS (1474 hours); Admin (1050 hrs – includes maintenance); Alum (827 hours); MBA (517 hours); Leadership (293 hours) Move to electronic – FY09 – represents data purchases for faculty up until March 12, 2009; FY10 does not include Faculty purchases. Continued investment in electronic. Paper represents serials (some contractual issues, some still in paper) Notice growth in electronic-based products – can do even more with new technologies although there will be a need for custom development. (web parts). IM – 35,348 unique visitors; ave. of 490 unique visitors per week. Linked to by economist.com, EIU.com, boston.com, ccn.com. OPMeBaker big hit – idea of developing a version for each long program (?)Global – 2/3rd of research requests have a global requirements – Q1 -96/Q2- 173 (BRS); Stronger ties with colleagues in Europe and in Asia. Unknown what we should/should not do with China. Some work in Latin America but reduced focus in FY09. Stronger partnership with Research Centers. Still think there is a lot we could be doing to support the work of the Research Centers. Looking at building China knowledge base as go-to place for business research on China. Faculty knowledge/reach – Working Knowledge Visitor growth is slowing (about 2M unique visitors a year); increased number of email subscribers (up 51.5% in three years); international up a bit (1%); important revenue lead for HBP; used as selling point for corporate relationships with Exec Ed (HP e.g.); now sliced specifically for the initiatives; picked up by other media. Added Economic Crisis site – unique visitors so far 41,593 – linked to by cnbc.com, Forbes.com, Wikipedia, ft.com, businessweek.com; Inside HBS (for HBS only – 822 unique visitors) ; starting stakeholder analysis on WK (Steering Committee – Paul Gompers, Valerie P., Brian K, Jean C)- think of it in context of larger issue of faculty dissemination