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.

A632.3.3.RB - Framing Complex Decisions

Kleindorfer (2001) discusses decision-making in complex environments and how “compressed decision time and complexity are swamping the orderly flow of information and authority, characteristic of traditional decision making” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 116).  He also describes three decision-making approaches for dealing with multiple stakeholders within complex environments.  These approaches are specifically put to use when navigating data-rich environments, navigating systemic complexity, and navigating multistakeholder and environmental complexity.  For example, in data-rich environments “managers are using tools such as data mining and data warehousing to harness this avalanche of data in their business decisions” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 121).  And, while data is an element driving complexity, “interactions across multiple system boundaries surrounding a particular decision context” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 122) is another factor increasing complexity.  Computer models are being created to navigate systemic complexity and simulate these interactions.  These models are built with three components in mind: “data, the model itself, and some means of optimizing or evaluating alternative decisions in the context of the model” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 122).  These models have proven to be invaluable to decision-making within complex environments but also have their limitations.  The models are only as good as the information input into them and considering perfect information is not possible, the decision is ultimately left to the decision maker.  The final challenge lies within navigating multistakeholder and environmental complexity.  The interactions of multiple stakeholders increase complexity and therefore “co-opetition” or cooperation amongst competition is a necessary tool required to help synergize such a complex environment.  

Having to navigate multistakeholder and environmental complexity is of particular interest to me because I interact with multiple stakeholders in a complex environment on a daily basis.  I also believe there are many areas to improve within my VA (Veterans Affairs) organization.  My primary goal in changing any VA process would be to implement a bottom-up strategy utilizing the employee stakeholder voice.  Organizations have traditionally been modeled using a top-down structure.  This means the leader, say a CEO for example, is at the top of the organization’s hierarchy making independent decisions to communicate down to the employees.  As with anything, a top-down, or autocratic leadership approach has its advantages and disadvantages.  However, an alternative is to flip the structure upside down and use a bottom-up approach.  The top-down structure has been the only structure used in the VA since its inception.  Nonetheless, Robert McDonald, then Secretary of VA, aimed to change the top-down approach and implement a bottom-up structure a few years ago.  

Fortunately, Robert McDonald had such authority and the bottom-up structure began to be gradually implemented.  The organization began to witness programs established to reach out to everyone in the organization for ideas.  Some ideas received attention and were implemented throughout all VA facilities nationwide.  We began to see the culture shift from an independently operated approach to each facility towards more of a national collaboration to make each facility operate more effectively and efficiently.  Changing to a bottom-up structure had a substantial impact on the organization’s strategy.  For example, Lister (n.d.) suggests “in a top-down strategic management model, ownership or high-level management personnel determine objectives and how the rest of the business will work toward accomplishing those objectives” (para. 2) and input from the bottom is practically nonexistent.  Conversely, strategy within a bottom-up structure becomes more of a collaborative and shared effort of the entire workforce despite the leader having the final decision for implementation.  However, the success of implementing such a bottom-up strategy is based on the assumptions that everyone wants to contribute to solving problems and that management has the ability to listen, summarize, support, and understand (Obolensky, 2014).  

Implementing a bottom-up strategy also has its implications for leadership.  First, a change to the leadership approach must coincide when switching from a top-down to a bottom-up strategy.  A leader who is used to an autocratic leadership style will have to make significant adjustments for a bottom-up structure change.  Additionally, leadership is not found just at the top of an organization, it is occurring throughout the organization.  This is because a bottom-up environment is about all employees having an opportunity to exercise their leadership abilities and to have the freedom to express their creativity.  For example, Lukens (2016) suggests bottom-up leadership provides an advantage “by getting many people’s input, it crowdsources wisdom and information, allowing you to draw on the best ideas that are out there, rather than just dictating a certain task for someone to perform” (para. 5).  To further demonstrate, the article How to Lead When You’re Not the Boss  (2009) discusses how it does not take formal authority to find opportunities to lead and describes some methods to lead when not in charge such as engaging others and providing feedback.

I witnessed a major change within my organization because of the bottom-up structure. Employees felt their ideas and suggestions fell on deaf ears but were now confident their opinions were not only heard but valued.  Additionally, mechanisms were put in place to help all employees facilitate these ideas and suggestions. However, Dr. David Shulkin replaced Robert McDonald as the Secretary of the VA in February 2017.  The organization has not experienced such an emphasis on the bottom-up strategy that Robert McDonald envisioned.  Although there has not been an official announcement as to whether or not Dr. Shulkin wants to revert back to the top-down approach, we as an organization are experiencing less and less of a focus on the voices of the employees.

References:

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

How to Lead When You're Not the Boss. (2009). Harvard Management Update, 14(3), 1-2.

Lister, J. (n.d.).  The difference between top down and bottom up strategic management.  Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-top-down-bottom-up-strategic-management-25957.html

Lukens, M. (2016, February 11).  The false choice between top-down and bottom-up leadership.  Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3056551/work-smart/the-false-choice-between-top-down-and-bottom-up-leadership

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

I’ve heard of frames and framing before reading Chapter 8 of the Wharton text.  Yet, I struggled a bit with challenging myself to actually define both terms.  I think there is a certain abstract quality that prevented me from fully grasping the subject.  The text validated my thought by describing frames as a “stable, coherent cognitive structure” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 134) and provided me a much better understanding of frames and the framing tools to improve decisions.  Hoch, et al., (2001) concluded that “effective leaders challenge old frames, envision bold new ones, and contrast the two very clearly” (p. 155).

Shoemaker and Russo discuss three framing traps that may distort our decisions.  These traps include frame blindness, the illusion of completeness, and overconfidence.  On a positive note, they identify the following steps to combat these traps and take charge of our frames: see the frame by conducting a frame audit, identify and change inadequate frames, and master techniques for reframing.  I have utilized each of these steps throughout out my life.  For example, I conducted a frame audit by understanding the frames of others after recently starting a new position in my organization.  I went from being on the back end of the procurement process as a contract specialist to the front end as an acquisition specialist assisting the end user.  The basic flow of the procurement process starts with the end user submitting necessary documentation to contracting, the requirement gets awarded by contracting, and the contract is closed out upon completion. That is a very oversimplified version and of course, there are a lot of deadlines, challenges, and communication that takes place in the process.  There tends to be an us vs. them mentality and Contracting likes to blame the customer and vice versa.  However, I noticed nobody tried to understand what the other is experiencing or examine the frames of different stakeholders (Hoch et al., 2001).  After all, we are all on the same team.  I see an opportunity in my new position to bridge a gap between Contracting and all stakeholders involved in the acquisition process.  The primary risks will be implementing new processes that everyone embraces and changing the culture.

Another example of using one of the aforementioned steps to avoid framing traps was when I identified and changed inadequate frames by questioning my reference points.  For example, my reference points are the identical positions as mine at other VA facilities.  The good news here is that I have the luxury of choosing my reference points to gauge my success. While other similar programs exist at other VA Medical Centers, I am essentially building a new program how I believe it should be created.  Furthermore, I trust I possess enough self-awareness not to be overconfident and see an opportunity to put together one of the best, if not the best, programs in the VA. The risk with such a complex endeavor is understanding it will take time.

My third example of avoiding framing traps was mastering techniques for reframing by using multiple frames.  I am fortunate to have already built relationships with most departments in my organization.  In the first week in my new position, I thought about placing myself in a new environment to get a better perspective.  I scheduled to sit with two different employees to go through their processes and understand exactly what they do.  In turn, this will provide an opportunity for me to identify and solve problem areas.  However, I must avoid risking the illusion of completeness after solving these problems as “no frame is complete; each one highlights and hides different aspects of the situation at hand” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 140).

This exercise has taught me to be balanced in my decision-making process.  I must understand my frame as well as everyone else’s frame, question and challenge reference points, and be confident but not overconfident.  I also learned I need to challenge myself more at how I perceive situations.  For example, Hoch et al., (2001) use the analogy of how managers often “look out at the world through one mental window and fail to notice the views offered by other windows” (p. 139).  This was a powerful illustration and reminded me of looking out different windows of a building in a literal sense.  I could look out the window from the first floor of the building and think I see everything at ground level.  However, when I look out the window from a higher floor, I now see numerous things not visible from the window at ground level.  This clearly demonstrates how I must constantly shift my view for every situation to find optimal solutions.

Reference:

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

A632.2.3.RB - Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

Sheena Iyengar discusses how we become paralyzed to make a decision when faced with too many options.  She presented four strategies to assist us in overcoming what some may call analysis paralysis; when we become so overwhelmed by so many options that we can’t make a decision in fear of selecting the wrong choice.  These strategies include cut, concretization, categorization, and condition for complexity.

Cut: Getting rid of the extraneous redundant options to improve the choosing experience is the focus of cutting.  Iyengar illustrates this method by applying it to a business example when employees cannot make the distinction between available choices than neither can the consumer.  If this is the case, then it is time to cut those choices as an option to a consumer.   

Concretization: This strategy brings the consequences associated with a choice forward in a way the impact of the choice can be felt.  For example, people spend more money when using a credit card as opposed to real money because the card doesn’t feel like real money.

Categorization: This technique involves categorizing all the options available because “we can handle more categories than we can handle choices” (Iyengar, 2011, 11:36).  

Condition for Complexity:  Sometimes we are faced with very complex decisions.  We can simplify the decision-making process if we gradually increase the complexity.  For example, going from low choices to high choices provides the same information and number of available choices, but simplifies the choices by changing the order it is presented.

Sometimes I feel overwhelmed with the amount of responsibilities and necessary decisions associated with all the responsibilities.  I feel like I need to accomplish everything and it needs to be instant.  However, I think if I make use of the “cut” technique Iyengar presented, I can lessen the burden I more than likely and unnecessarily place on myself.  For example, some of the things I believe I need to do can either be delayed or simply cut from my “to do” list.  Granted, some may view this as prioritizing what is necessary and what isn’t, but if it falls to the bottom of the priority list than I’m thinking it can be cut from it altogether.  This will allow me to reduce stress and provide a better ability to focus on my highest priorities.  

I can utilize concretization in my professional life to improve my decision-making ability.  I am a Contract Specialist for the Veterans Affairs (VA) who procures medical supplies and equipment for multiple VA Medical Centers.  Although I work very hard and am passionate about completing my tasks, I believe there is always room for improvement.  My office is not located in the hospital and distances me from being exposed to the patients and clinical settings.  I think if I take a walk through the hospital once a week, it can serve as a reminder as to why I am procuring the items and who it is impacting.  This will allow me to better feel the impact of what I am doing on a daily basis.

An additional way to improve my decision-making process is to use a Decision Support System (DSS).  This tool would primarily assist me in making decisions at work.  While these systems can greatly optimize my results, I have to also understand that Decision Support Systems should be utilized as a complementary tool to human intuition because “experts excel where models fail, and vice versa” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 88).  

References

Iyengar, S. (2011, November).  How to make choosing easier.  Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose#t-598990

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