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

Some decisions we must make each day are so simple that we unconsciously arrive at the solution.  Whereas, other decisions are much more complex and it feels as if no good answer exists. Most of these decisions typically involve some level of emotion throughout the decision-making process.  For example, there may not be a strong need for emotions for a decision about what to eat for lunch. However, emotions may play a large role in making what someone may feel is a life-changing decision, such as choosing a career or which college to attend.   Batista (2013) states that “some of these decisions feel particularly big because they involve selecting one option to the exclusion of all others when the cost of being “wrong” can be substantial” (para. 1). Professor Baba Shiv believes utilizing emotions are underrated suggesting that “it is so critical that you invoke emotion into the decision-making process because of the virtues that accrue from there” (Stanford, 2011).  He proceeds to point out these virtues produced from emotion as passion that is persuasive, confidence that is contagious, and the extraction of utility from the experience (Stanford, 2011).

An example of when I was very confident about a decision was when I disagreed with a process in my organization.  It was drilled into our heads that we were not allowed to pay for shipping over $250 using a government credit card.  This was supposedly a government regulation that was strictly enforced and my supervisor along with my counterparts at other facilities all agreed the purchase card could not be used for this purpose. I discovered an employee had been routinely using their card to pay for shipping over $250 and questioned them on their rationale and process. I also read the regulation, then I read it again, and read it some more.  Something did not feel right. I interpreted the regulation that shipping over $250 had to go through a specific process, however, nowhere did it state the credit card could not be used as the payment mechanism. I was fully confident that the entire organization throughout the country had been following a regulation incorrectly and in the process wasting resources. I butted heads with my counterparts and supervisor over the issue with no resolution. I understood where they were coming from because after all, how could an entire organization possibly be following a process incorrectly for so long?  Yet, I believed that was truly the case and I finally asked my supervisor if he would allow me to raise my concern to the national level and he approved. Long story short, my instincts proved to be right and the process changed throughout our organization. It paid, in this case, to trust in my confidence and follow through to challenge conventional wisdom to result in a positive change.

Conversely, an example in which I lacked the confidence of the outcome was my decision to pursue a Master’s degree.  I failed out of my first year of college and immediately enlisted in the Air Force. It was definitely a wake-up call that I needed to grow up or I would be “flipping burgers for a living” as my father used to say.  After a couple years of getting acclimated to the military lifestyle, I spent almost 8 years chasing my dream of earning a Bachelor’s degree. I was proud of this accomplishment because I had to juggle so many other responsibilities while taking my classes.  It was a challenge and one I wasn’t sure I could overcome when I began that journey. So here I was being faced with another decision to further my education and my list of responsibilities was not growing shorter. So many questions and scenarios ran through my mind.  I found myself constantly weighing the pros and cons of such an important decision. Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001) suggest “there is a growing body of evidence that affect and emotions play an important role in people’s decision processes for choices when there are uncertain outcomes” (p. 269).  The outcome of my decision was seemingly uncertain, but did I give myself any reason to doubt I would succeed? Was even the slightest chance something could go wrong be enough to deter me from making an attempt at a Master’s degree? I knew it would not be easy, but I also knew I would not allow myself to fail, so I made the decision to begin another academic journey.  

References:

Batista, E., (2013, November 8).  Stop worrying about making the right decision.  Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/11/stop-worrying-about-making-the-right-decision

Hoch, S., & Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Stanford.  (2011, November 7).  Brain research at stanford: decision making [Video file].  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Effective leaders understand that different situations require various decisions and responses and within these situations lies numerous levels of complexity.  Snowden and Boone (2007) developed the Cynefin Framework “to see things from new viewpoints, assimilate complex concepts, and address real-world problems and opportunities” (p. 70).  This framework “sorts the issues facing leaders into five contexts defined by the nature of the relationship between cause and effect” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 70): simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic.  The fifth context, disorder, pertains when the primary context is unclear.

The first example of a decision I made in multiple contexts occurred while supervising.  My responsibility was to supervise and instruct employees on assembling locomotive components such as alternators and rotors.  I typically operated within a complicated context in a realm of known unknowns on a daily basis.  Quality and supply chain problems were common, but I became adept at sensing, analyzing, and responding appropriately.  However, one shift proved to be especially challenging.  We had some emergency orders that needed to be fulfilled and even the slightest delay in our processes would put our schedule in jeopardy.  As luck would have it, a machine on the assembly line broke and created a complex context.  This situation put everyone into a slight panic and scrambling for a solution.  It was second shift and all the leaders who make the big business decisions were already home for the night.  There was no time to waste, so I gathered my workers who I viewed as the experts and we quickly devised a plan.  This was an important step because “a leader must listen to the experts while simultaneously welcoming novel thoughts and solutions from others” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 72).  The plan worked flawlessly and despite the setback, we successfully fulfilled the emergency order.

My second example runs the gamut of all four contexts during my brief career as a contract specialist.  On any given day I found myself constantly bouncing around each context with zero predictability.  Some people embraced the unpredictability, but I was not one of those people.  And while Snowden and Boone (2007) suggest that “leaders who understand that the world is often irrational and unpredictable will find the Cynefin framework particularly useful” (p. 70), the problem was time.  There was a minimal time spent operating within simple contexts because time constraints rarely allowed it.  Therefore, I spent most of my efforts searching for answers using incomplete data within complex contexts and sometimes even crossing into chaotic contexts.  One such example was when I was tasked with awarding multiple contracts before the end of the fiscal year deadline.  I was given too many contracts for the amount of time to award them.  And despite the many hours of overtime I spent managing my workload, the clock was about to run out.  I noticed some of my coworkers were somehow managing to accomplish their workload, but after further examination, the quality of their work was subpar and even noncompliant.  I thought for a second I would have to conform to a lackluster standard to get my work done, but I knew I wasn’t wired that way.  So I pressed on.  This was a chaotic context filled with turbulence, tension, and unknowables.  Nonetheless, even though it came down to the final hour, I looked for what would work instead of perfect solutions and accomplished the awards in time.  

The Cynefin Framework provides an essential roadmap of sorts when navigating amongst different contexts and having to make important decisions within them.  One way this framework can assist in the decision-making process is bringing to light how entrained thinking must be avoided.  As Snowden and Boone (2007) state, “leaders are susceptible to entrained thinking, a conditioned response that occurs when people are blinded to new ways of thinking by the perspectives they acquired through past experience, training, and success” (p. 70).  Another way the Cynefin Framework helps is by identifying the leader’s role within each context.  For example, a leader must sense, categorize and respond within the simple context while a leader needs to act, sense, and respond within the chaotic context.  A third and fourth way it improves decisions is by recognizing the danger signals and responses to these dangers related to a leader’s decision for each context.  The fifth way it helps with these decisions is by stressing the importance of understanding context, “the ability to embrace complexity and paradox, and a willingness to flexibly change leadership style” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 76).

Reference:

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.