A632.7.3.RB - Collaborative Decision Making

Throughout our daily lives, we are faced with having to make decisions that will inevitably affect others.  Whether at home with our family, functions with our friends, or in our organization with coworkers, we must make decisions impacting stakeholders to some degree.  However, many of us make independent decisions without considering the perspectives of others.  Stewart Levine recognized these common occurrences and developed a seven-step model to achieve successful resolution producing effective agreements.  The aptly named “Cycle of Resolution” model “takes you through the inevitable conflicts, back to a state of resolution and productivity” (Levine, 2009, p. 39).  Collaboration is one of many important aspects woven throughout this model to help facilitate a viable outcome.

I was already anxious about my oldest son Anthony’s high school education when he in elementary school.  My wife believed my concern to be premature since we had plenty of time until he reached ninth grade.  My anxiousness stemmed from when we were faced with the decision on which school Anthony would attend a few years prior.  I felt the public school close to our house provided an excellent education and it was free.  However, my wife advocated to send him to a private Catholic school which was very expensive.  I understood the value a Catholic school provided as my wife and I both attended Catholic grade schools.  Yet, I was confident that we could monitor his public school education all while indoctrinating him into the Catholic faith.  We had many point-counterpoint discussions and despite both of our budgetary concerns, we came to an agreement for him to attend the private Catholic school.  

Anthony visited a few high school open houses last year to help him get an idea of where he may want to attend.  He, of course, fell in love with the most expensive Catholic Preparatory high school in our city.  The tuition of this school rivaled some college universities.  Reality set in for my wife and the anxiety I experienced about six years ago was now being shared equally amongst the both of us.  I plead my case that his Catholic school education more than prepared him to attend public high school and that we simply could not afford to send him where he wanted.  While my wife agreed the tuition would be difficult if not impossible she was still not swayed by my argument.  She believed we could find a way to make it work.  Part of me wanted to have the ability to force him to go to the public school and I assumed that my wife had the same posture about the Catholic high school.  As parents, we knew this had to be a joint decision, but unfortunately, we came to the conclusion to agree to disagree.  

Recently, Anthony took advantage of the opportunity to shadow at the high school he wanted to attend and did not enjoy the experience.  This was difficult to hear considering he already had so much apparel representing this high school as if it was a guarantee he was attending.  He then shadowed at the other Catholic Preparatory high school and absolutely loved it.  The tuition was less expensive, but not my very much.  We recommended he shadow at the original high school thinking he may have just been unlucky.  However, he had no doubt that he did not want to attend after his second shadow.  I suggested he shadow at the public high school and both my wife and Anthony reluctantly agreed.  He completed his shadow program at the public high school and told us it was his favorite.  He made up his mind and that is where he wanted to attend.  My wife was beyond displeased as she already had Anthony getting lost in the system and falling in with the wrong crowd to be doomed for college.  We had a long discussion about the pros and cons of him attending this public high school.  She still had some residual thoughts about forcing Anthony to a Catholic high school, but she became more accepting of his decision.  

A few days later Anthony came to us and after giving such an important decision more thought, he believed he liked the public school for the wrong reasons, such as the girls and freedom.  Even though the Catholic high school was only for boys, he knew it was going to best prepare him for college.  My first thought was how impressed I was with his maturity and independence to make such a big decision on his own.  This of course was followed by the sheer terror of paying for the tuition.  Nonetheless, after further discussions with my wife, I knew it would be an excellent investment into my child’s education and future.  

Collaborating with my wife was obviously key to the outcome.  We both shared a vision of success for Anthony even though we initially had different ideas on the path to get there.  Levine (2009) defines agreement “as: (1) a joint vision; (2) the product of an effective conflict resolution process; or (3) the foundation for a successful new team, partnership, or relationship” (p. 162).  We are blessed to have reached an agreement that not only aligned with our vision but more importantly with Anthony’s vision.  If I were to go through this situation again I would have involved Anthony more in the decision-making process.  I think as parents, being older and wiser with a “been there done that” attitude, we believe we know what is ultimately best for our child.  Yet once again we were humbled by a lesson from our young son in how he was fully capable of making the decision on his own.  Our youngest son is not far behind and we will be there to assist him with his decision when the time comes; not control his decision to satisfy our needs. We will also allow him to share his story and actively listen to ensure a viable outcome because “all concerns and interests should be accommodated in the resolution” (Levine, 2009, p. 137).

Reference:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

Have you ever tried to have a discussion with someone who repeatedly interrupts you when you are talking?  Whether intentionally or unintentionally they feel the need to dominate the conversation.  I have experienced this frustrating event more times than I would like to remember.  All I want to do is talk, have the person I am talking with listen without interruption, and they provide feedback.  Then it is their turn and the cycle continues until the conversation ends.  Levine (2009) suggests reciting our story, “uninterrupted, to an engaged listener, serves an essential, cathartic purpose” (p. 121).  This is especially true when it comes to conflict resolution as listening provides an essential step in the Cycle of Resolution to successfully resolve the conflict.  Allowing the opportunity for each individual to tell their story from beginning to end, without interruption, allows them to communicate their unique perspective to everyone involved (Levine, 2009).  However, I don’t think most people have given much thought to how a basic conversation should occur, let alone a conversation to resolve the conflict. Or, individuals may be aware of the importance of listening, yet they simply struggle to follow through.  

I have always prided myself in my ability to listen.  The aforementioned situation regarding being interrupted taught me what not to do when engaging in a conversation.  Although I am confident in my listening ability I still know there is always room for improvement.  I performed a test at work this week to accomplish this assignment in which I consciously focused on listening to someone’s story.  My first example is the experience I had as part of an interview panel.  MindToolsVideos (2015) describes active listening as a “conscious effort to hear and understand people so you get the complete message” and I viewed this as a great opportunity to put my active listening skills to the test.  This was definitely a different environment than an every day normal conversation because I would ask the candidate a question and they would provide an answer.  The normal protocol is to allow the candidate to answer without any interruption or feedback from the interview panel participants.  While this wasn’t a typical conversation, it still allowed me to really pay attention to urges I may have to interrupt.  To my surprise, I had more urges to speak and interrupt than expected.  This was a great learning experience that revealed I had some work to do to develop better listening skills.  

My other example occurred only a few hours after the interview.  I moved into a new office a few weeks ago and found myself in a very different atmosphere than what I was used to concerning coworkers.  I had the opportunity to discuss some of the office dynamics with a fellow co-worker who I believed to have a very similar disposition as myself.  I thought about the Improve Your Listening Skills with Active Listening video from this assignment prior to the conversation outlining five steps required in the active listening process: pay attention, show that you are listening, provide feedback, defer judgment, and respond appropriately.  I felt I did a pretty good job in demonstrating each of the five steps after our conversation concluded.  Was I perfect?  Absolutely not.  I caught myself a couple times telling what I felt were long-winded stories.  I believed my stories to be relative to our conversation and helpful in making points.  However, I pictured myself on the receiving end of my stories and had visions of myself yawning and losing interest.  I even apologized to my coworker for rambling and she replied, “no, no, you’re fine”.  But was I really fine or was she just being polite?  I know I did well in the five steps of active listening in this instance, but I need to improve on making my stories shorter to avoid losing my participant’s interest or even giving the impression I want to dominate the conversation.  Ironically, I need to make a slight improvement on the very thing I despise and discussed in the beginning of this assignment.  I definitely don’t want to be “that” person.  

References:

Levine, S. (2009 ). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into resolution. (2nd edition). Williston, VT: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

MindToolsVideos. (2015, June 12).  Improve your listening skills with active listening.  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/t2z9mdX1j4A

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

I was familiar with values prior to this week’s readings.  However, protected values was something new to me.  Thinking logically about the term as values we protect seems simple enough.  Yet, protected values can be defined as “those that resist trade-offs with other values” (Baron, 1997, p. 70)”.  In other words, values should not be “sacrificed for any compensating benefit, no matter how small the sacrifice or how large the benefit” (Hoch, Gunther, & Kunreuther,2001, p. 251).  People try to create rules such as not allowing any trade offs when it comes to abiding by their protected values.  These protected values are important “because they ensure that values will be kept in mind in every decision, but they are harmful to policy makers and managers because they make trade-offs impossible” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 255).  This carries over into our daily lives when confronted with decisions that may compromise our protected values.  In other words, it brings into question whether or not fully abiding by our protected values is even possible because trade-offs seem inevitable.

Three of what I consider to be my protected values consist of protecting the environment, a healthy lifestyle, and authenticity.  These values were gained mostly through personal experience and observation.  I have other protected values, but these three values can especially be heavily tested when it comes to making trade-offs.  I value protecting the environment and believe everyone should do their part in preserving our earth for future generations.  I try to be conscientious and consider how my decisions affect the environment.  I think doing our part probably varies a broad spectrum of degrees, but if everyone did something to contribute to a sustainable environment then we would be much further ahead.  By no means am I an extremist or out organizing demonstrations to save mother earth.  My actions include recycling, energy saving methods, and water conservation to align with this protected value.  This assignment challenges me to consider if I am doing everything I can to support my protected value.  I know I make trade-offs every day that impact the environment. For example, eating meat, driving to work, using electricity, are all things that probably aren’t the best for the environment.  However, I also have to keep in mind that “in practical terms, we cannot spend all our resources on protecting the environment, saving human lives, protecting human rights, or any one thing” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 251).

Maintaining a healthy lifestyle has always been a value to me.  The pro in this case is that I know that not only I, but my family reap the benefits of my efforts to be healthy.  Does this mean that every action I take revolves around whether or not it is a healthy decision?  Absolutely not.  And that is where the con or trade-off occurs.  I am realistic and know I am going to occasionally eat some unhealthy food or drink alcohol, but I am willing to accept such trade-offs.  I simply don’t have the time or energy to sustain a perfect lifestyle regarding health.  I’m not sure who really does.  And I believe if one is so focused that much in one area, there is a bit of an imbalance.  

Authenticity is another protected value I try my best to achieve and avoid trade-offs.  People who know me know I am dependable and live by a ‘say what I do and do what I say’ attitude.  As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.  People also trust me because I never give them a reason not to.  If someone comes to me for advice, they I know I won’t just tell them what they want to hear.  Does this mean I walk around telling every person exactly what is on my mind?  No.  I don’t think I would have many friends or believe I would be employed very long if I spoke my mind without a filter.  There lies the trade-off.  The pro in this case is that using my filter is beneficial to everyone, but is also a con because it damages the protection of my authentic value.  I remain cognizant that each decision I make either strengthens or weakens my personal relationship with each of my protected values.  Essentially, my understanding is that my level of protection is only as strong as the decisions made to support the protection.  However, I also realize that there is no such thing as maintaining a protected value 100% of the time for a lifetime and trade-offs are necessary to achieve a balance.

References:

Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1-16.

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H.,  & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

A632.4.4.RB - Deception in Negotiations

I cringe when thinking about having to negotiate.  I’m not talking about the type of negotiating involving my 10-year-old son and asking him for a few french fries in exchange for a sip of my milkshake.  No, I’m referring to say having to negotiate buying a house, a car, or even a salary for a new job.  I can’t really put my finger on why I have been such a poor negotiator, but I think it may have something to do with feeling like I am inconveniencing or upsetting the other party.  For whatever reason, I would rather sacrifice a little than go through an agonizing and tense negotiation process.  Glick and Croson mention how we have a reputation whether we know it or not (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001).  While I don’t think my reputation for negotiating is a hot topic of conversation, my guess is that most people would peg me as the nice guy willing to make concessions and be reasonable.  

I see myself as an honest person who has no reason to lie or deceive.  However, “deception of some kind is an inherent part of human interaction” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 189).  Such was the case when I wanted to hire someone to build a fence in my backyard.  I scheduled a few companies to come to my house and give me a quote.  I preferred one builder over the others because he was friendly, seemed knowledgeable, showed me pictures of his work, and had references. We negotiated a price and his only stipulation was for me to pay half up front and then the other half upon completion.  I pride myself on being a good judge of character and had no issue or reason not to trust him.  I paid him $600 and never heard from him again despite my repeated phone calls and messages.  I pursued legal options only to find out it would cost more to sue than what he stole from me and even if I wanted to sue I couldn’t because he had all his possessions in his children’s names.  I was definitely deceived and the loser in that negotiation.  

To varying degrees, deception tends to be involved in the negotiation process.  A negotiator may tell lies of omission in which they leave out important information or they may tell lies of commission by blatantly presenting false information.  The simple reason people use deception during a negotiation is to get what they want.  For example, my friend may ask me to come over to give him a hand with something and maybe have a couple beers and watch some football in the process.  When it comes time to tell my wife, I mean ask my wife to go help a friend in need, I may overstate how important it is for me to help him.  Additionally, I may also omit the parts about drinking beer and watching football.  Yet, if my wife asks questions, I always tell the truth.  Sometimes she doesn’t ask questions and I visit my friend and sometimes she asks questions and I’m staying home helping with things around the house.  

Sometimes people justify deception as a defense mechanism to protect themselves from being taken advantage of or distort information if it is unknown.  Nonetheless, there are ways to reduce being vulnerable to deception during negotiations.  For starters, consider the setting in which the negotiation takes place.  One may be more likely to attempt deception if they can hide behind a telephone or email versus being face-to-face.  The likelihood of deception during a face-to-face negotiation is completely eradicated, but nonverbal cues become more evident during this type of negotiation setting.  Another example to defend against deception is to establish trust by convincing the negotiation partner deception will not be used.  This is important because if deception is used to achieve a successful negotiation, future negotiation opportunities with the same party may be damaged or potentially destroyed.  A third method is to ask questions and listen carefully to “be sure that the person providing information is in a position to know that information” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 197).  Lastly, managing your reputation by developing relationships through being fair and honest sets up future negotiations for the long-term.  In other words, taking a win at all costs approach may obtain immediate success, but will prove to be a detriment to longevity.  

Reference:

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H.,  & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.