A632.9.3.RB-Role of emotion in decision making-Trey McNeil

Whether we like it or not, emotions tend to play a pivotal role in our decision-making process. According to Shiv (2011), “emotion plays a crucial role in the decision-making process by allowing us to resolve decision conflicts” (0:50). How often do you find yourself making a decision solely based on fear, happiness, or sadness? I often tend to let my emotions take the wheel in the decision-making process. You could also say that I usually wear my emotions on my sleeve and that tends to play a part in my decisions. There are times at work where my coworkers will be able to read my face to identify my emotions at that particular moment. I may be excited that I finished a project or fearful of an upcoming meeting. Negative emotions can suppress our decision-making process if we allow them to take control, but, on the other hand, positive emotions may give us that extra push to make a successful decision.  This blog describes two decisions that were engulfed in emotion. One decision was met with positive emotion and confidence where the other was met with fear and less confidence.

I know it may sound cheesy, but one decision that was met with overconfidence was when my girlfriend (Casey) and I decided to move in together (and yes she does know I chose this decision to write about this week). According to Lamia (2010), “When an emotion is triggered in your brain, your nervous systems responds by creating feelings in your body (what many people refer to as a "gut feeling") and certain thoughts in your mind” (para. 1). For some reason, my gut was telling me it was the right thing to do and it would work out. According to Shiv (2011), “It is decision confidence that gives rise to the passion that is associated with a course of action that is being taken” (3:35). Let me give you a little bit of background about the events that led up to our decision to move in together.

We first met at a Mississippi law firm in which we were employed. As two of the younger employees, we quickly became friends. It was about nine months before we started dating and things began to progress quickly. We began going out several nights a week and spent nearly every night together during the summer. At that point, I had an apartment and, because she was still in college, she lived with her parents in a rental house. Her parents were building a house that was supposed to be finished at the end of August 2005. But, in the last week of August 2005 Mississippi was hit by Hurricane Katrina pushing the completion of their house a couple of weeks. Casey’s father came to me and said that he and her mom were going to have to find a place to stay for a couple of weeks and would appreciate if Casey could stay with me during that time. I felt a bit of surprise to be asked this question by her father but excitedly said yes. The aftermath of the storm created slow progress on their house and they were not able to move in until November. At that point, we had been living together for over two months and we made the decision to continue our living arrangements.

Though I was thrilled about how well things were going, there was still a level of anticipation and fear. I was not fearful of our relationship or living together, but about my family’s reaction to hearing that we were cohabitating. Living together unwed in Mississippi is not always something that is easily accepted. I knew my dad would understand but was a bit worried about my mom’s response. Luckily, my mom took the news okay and gave us her blessing. In retrospect, this decision could have gone badly, but I was confident it would have a positive outcome. It has been nearly twelve years since that decision was made and I am still overjoyed about our choice.

There are also instances where I am extremely unconfident about a decision I am making. One example that fits that description was my choice to go back to school after  thirteen years. I have always suffered from a case of self-doubt. When I graduated college I was fearful that I would never find a job. When I was hired I was scared that I would not be able to learn or keep up with my work. This self-doubt followed me to Florida and reared its ugly head once again when I was hired for my current position. I did not think I could cut could it as an accountant and pictured the day when I would be let go. Though self-doubt follows me around there is a common thread in all of those examples- I did not fail and in fact did quite well. So, when I made the decision to go back to school after many years I continued to doubt myself and I am not sure why. I was able to overcome the fear in the previous examples but the uncertainty was too great to feel confident about school. According to Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001), “There is now a growing body of evidence that affect and emotions play an important role in people’s decision process for choices when there are uncertain outcomes” (p.269).

I remember feeling terror and was nearly petrified when I began the enrollment process. I was never that great of a student in high school. I graduated near the bottom of my class which is where a portion of my self-doubt comes from. I began to find my niche in community college in the accounting and math-based classes. But, my biggest fear when I began the MSLD program was the writing aspect. The first paper I wrote in community college received a grade in the 40’s and my teacher asked if I had ever heard of spell or grammar check. I considered myself a dismal writer, so when I realized that I would be asked to write several assignments a week the emotions of fear and terror resurfaced. When I turned in the assignments for the first week in MSLD 500, my emotions were now bordering on worry and trepidation. How would the instructor like my assignments? What will my grades be on my assignments? Will I receive another grade in the 40’s?

But a funny thing happened when I got my grades back- I did well in week one, but the fear did not subside. The first several weeks were very rough and I fought each day with the decision to give up on my journey. I could not sleep and remember losing weight due to the overall fear and dread the decision of going back to school was causing me. The week that nearly did me in was week five. I had never attempted a literature review or annotated bibliography and knew I would fail. I honestly contemplated dropping the class up to the moment of the deadline, but I am glad I didn’t because that would have been a mistake I would have regretted.

Last year, I attended the graduation ceremony at ERAU where I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Matt Earnhardt. If it was not for Dr. Earnhardt, my girlfriend, and other classmates I may have made a poor choice and ended my pursuit of my Master’s degree. Dr. Earnhardt was great about emailing me a couple of times a week to check on me during the infancy of my program to calm me down and talk me off the ledge. My girlfriend was there to help me center my emotions as I tried to find myself in the education process. And, my classmates were there to bounce ideas off of and pick each other up as we were all at the beginning of a difficult journey.  As I look back at my decision to begin school I feel joyous. I still have a bit of self-doubt and fear each time I start a class, but am able to handle the fear and turn it into a positive. What a difference a year can make! I am now finishing my eighth of twelve classes (so I guess I am 2/3 a Master) and have learned so much about myself. Who would have known that I enjoy writing (most of the time)? I am so happy that the fear and dread I felt did not consume me and cause me to decide to quit. I cannot imagine the negative effects it would have had on me. 

References

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

Lamia, M. C. (2010). Like it or not, emotions will drive the decisions you make today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intense-emotions-and-strong-feelings/201012/it-or-not-emotions-will-drive-the-decisions-you

Shiv, B. (2011, November 7). Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc  

A632.8.4.RB- Cynefin Framework Reflection- Trey McNeil

In his 2010 video, Dave Snowden described the Cynefin Framework model. In his description, Snowden (2010) stated that Cynefin Framework differs from other decision-making models because it is a sense-making model and not a categorization model (1:07). In other words, in most models, the model guides the decision but in the Cynefin Framework model, the data guides the model. The data itself points you to where to be in the frame, which can seem a bit complex. Snowden (2010) stated that the model is complex in nature because it is “rooted in many different paths which profoundly influence what you are but of which you can only be partially aware” (0:47).

The model consists of four quadrants or frames which are simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Each of these frames warrant different actions or decisions. Each frame can be used to simplify decision making based on the situation or data that is presented.

The ‘simple’ quadrant can ease or facilitate decision-making because it is an ordered system in which the relationship between cause and effect is anticipated in advance. In other words, in the simple context the relationship between cause and effect should be evident to any rational person. The relationship between cause and effect in the simple quadrant is a benefit because individuals are taught to use best practices in these scenarios.

Snowden and Boone (2007) gave an example of a simple decision occurring when a borrower pays less money than is required. After I graduated college, I took a position as an account receivable clerk at a local law firm. My duties included reviewing the bills, billing the clients, and collecting and depositing the funds. The processes were straightforward and simple including what to do when a client did not pay their full bill. In these situations, our ‘best practice’ was to apply what was paid and bill the remainder as an unpaid balance with the next month’s bill. Each employee in the department knew the procedure to follow if a bill was not paid in full.

The ‘complicated’ quadrant of the Cynefin Framework can also be utilized to ease the decision-making process. One way the complicated frame is helpful in successful decisions is that it allows an individual to analyze the data because the relationship between cause and effect exists but is not self-evident.  In a complicated situation, there could be multiple correct answers but it all depends on your level of expertise, so this quadrant could be used as a learning experience. The third way that this quadrant can ease decision-making is that it utilizes the help of experts.

I used my experience as an accounts receivable clerk as an example of a ‘simple’ quadrant, but there were also instances where the situation put me in the ‘complicated’ quadrant or frame.  For example, what is the ‘best’ practice to handle a client that has not paid their bill for several months? In this situation, there is not a best practice as there are several options that could be utilized. First, we could send them to a collection agency which was frowned upon by the shareholders. The second option was to get a shareholder to include a letter with the next bill. This avenue was taken if the shareholder did not know the client terribly well. The third option was for the shareholder to call the client. Finally, the shareholder could simply ‘write off’ the debt. Snowden and Boone (2007) stated that complicated contexts sometimes require the use of experts. When a client had not paid their bill in several months I would seek the expertise of my supervisor or the shareholder in charge of the case. In this situation, they would choose a ‘good practice’ based on the data at hand (Snowden, 2010).

The third quadrant in the Cynefin Framework is the ‘complex’ context. This frame is different from the two previous frames because it is a system without causality (cause and effect do not share a link). Snowden and Boone (2007) stated that individuals in this frame should probe, sense, and then respond. This category could be beneficial in decision-making because it creates a learning experience that allows individuals to experiment with systems. The final product is a new way of dealing with things or ‘emergent practices’ (Snowden, 2010).

Not long after I was hired for my current position, it was evident that the procedure for entering lengthy journal entries needed to be altered. The previous procedure consisted of hand keying each entry which took a considerable amount of time. With the consistency of the extensive journal entries beginning to speed up, a new process it was dire to develop a new process.

Snowden (2010) stated that the complex quadrant involves experiments to see what works best. To develop a new system to upload journal entries, my coworker and I experimented with many different methods. Some methods were failures so we would go away from that line of thinking where other methods were more successful so we would continue on that route. In the end, my coworker and I were able to develop a new and more successful way of doing things in relation to lengthy journal entries.

The final quadrant is the chaotic frame or context. Most individuals, leaders included, would not vote to be in this frame, but it is a part of life and business so it will happen on occasion. The Cynefin Framework can be utilized to make more successful decisions when chaos shows up. This model allows decision makers or leaders to quickly stabilize the situation. The actions that are encouraged in the chaotic context are to act, sense, and respond which is different from the other frames. The frame encourages individuals to act quickly in an effort to correct the situation and then move on from there which could lead to growth if the situation is handled. 

When I was in college, my apartment complex was hit by straight line winds in excess of over 100 mph. We were told multiple times that it was not a tornado but it could have fooled me. My roommate and I happened to be home when this occurred and we utilized the chaotic quadrant of the Cynefin Framework in this instance. We did not have time to analyze what we should do but immediately took action. We grabbed a mattress off of the bed and got into the bathtub in an effort to stabilize the situation (Snowden, 2010). After the initial weather was over we then analyzed the situation and plotted our next move. After assessing the damage, we knew that we could not stay there so we went to a friend’s house until the damage could be repaired. If we would have incorrectly believed we were in a different frame and began to probe or analyze before taking action then the situation may have ended differently.

One piece of interesting advice offered by Snowden (2010) was that chaos can be chosen intentionally and in this instance, renovation occurs. I am reminded of a situation at work involving project numbers where we knowingly entered chaos at an attempt of renovation. The Foundation has approximately 450 active projects and several years ago we decided to renumber all of the projects to better align with the college and accounting manual. The previous system of numbers was efficient, but a choice was made to update the numbers. The following three or four months was filled with chaos and frustration but the final product resulted in renovated project numbers that were more in line with the state accounting manual. I always pictured chaos as a bad thing but in this instance, chaos led to a better product. 

References

Snowden, D. J. & Boone, M.E., (2007).  A leader’s framework for decision making.  Harvard Business Review, 85(11), Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making%20

Snowden, D. (2010). The Cynefin Framework. Cognitive Edge Video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be  

A632.8.3.RB- Reflections on the Cynefin Framework- Trey McNeil

As an individual who claims to always be prepared, I thought I did a decent job at making decisions. I believed that I was strategic in my thought process and my decision- making process was strong. But, this class and this week, in particular, have taught me that decisions are not always as straightforward or routine as they may seem. There are multiple factors and situations where the decision process must be altered in order to produce the most successful decision.

This week I had the opportunity to study the Cynefin Framework. This decision-making model comes from a Welsh word and is properly pronounced ku-nev-in. According to Snowden (2010), the actual meaning of the word is “the place of multiple belongings” (0:42). The meaning of the word plays an important role in the model’s five frames or contexts.  In all honesty, I initially had a difficult time understanding this model. Snowden (2010) stated that the difference in this model is that the data precedes the framework wherein most models the model itself precedes the data. How the Cynefin Framework model is designed allows individuals to survey the situation before determining the context and therefore determine the correct action or decision.  Once I was able to let go of the idea of the category driving the decision and realized it was the other way around, the model began to make a bit more sense.

I as I critically evaluated the Cynefin Framework, I determined five methods in which it can improve decision making. First, the Cynefin Framework is dynamic and not a static system of decision making. Many things in life do not sit still, so the system of decision making held by leaders should also allow for movement. The dynamic nature of the model allows for better decisions and more decisive actions. Secondly, the model allows for communication. According to Snowden & Boone (2007), the complicated context may require the help of an expert or another coworker. The complex context allows for leaders and decision makers to set the stage and then take a step back to see what works best (Snowden & Boone, 2007). I picture a leader discussing the decision with their followers and then allowing the followers to develop different scenarios to solve the problem Once again, this context allows for leaders to communicate with others in an effort to produce the most successful decision.  

Another useful aspect of the Cynefin Framework is that it can help build a culture to pre-plan as much as possible with the understanding that dynamic changes may, and most likely will occur. Leaders must understand that a culture of preparedness is important, but the preparation must include change and the unknown. According to Snowden & Boone (2007), “Circumstances change, however, and as they become more complex, the simplifications can fail” (para. 2). Having an understanding of Cynefin framework will help leaders prepare for change.  The third benefit of Cynefin framework leads directly into the fourth benefit. This framework allows leaders and decision makers to vacate their comfort zones. Snowden & Boone (2007) stated that managers sometimes rely on specific leadership methods. The problem with relying on a single method is that it could work remarkable in one situation and fail miserably in another situation. This framework allows the leaders or decision maker to vacate this comfort zone and begin making decisions based on other contexts. The final benefit of the Cynefin framework is that it is a multifaceted model. The framework allows for decisions to be flexible therefore not linked to one specific action or context.

I mentioned that the Cynefin framework consists of five distinct contexts and each quadrant has a different response. These five contexts and responses are (a) simple- sense, categorize, respond, (b) complicated- sense, analyze respond, (c) complex- probe, sense, respond, (d) chaotic- act, sense, respond, and (e) disorder- the point where an individual does not know the context in which they belong. Though each context has its response there are instances where a decision or action lies across multiple contexts. Individuals must be careful in situations where the context can shift during the decision-making process. In these situations, the response must mirror the context.

As I pondered the framework and contexts I realized there have been many times that I have been in a situation that encompassed multiple contexts. One situation occasionally occurs at work when creating new scholarship projects in the accounting system.

When a donor decides to create a scholarship they are asked to enter into a donor agreement. In this agreement, they specify the amount that they would like to donate, the frequency of the award, the amount of the award, specifics such as required GPA and number of hours being taken, and the type of student the award should be given to. The donor can specify programs such as athletics, science, math, humanities, emergency services, general, etc. If a donor decides to give $10,000 and clarifies that the student must be training in the police, EMS, or firefighter program then the creation of a scholarship project is fairly simple. The Foundation projects are nine digits long and the fourth through six digits are related to the type of scholarship.  In this case, the code for emergency services would be utilized to complete the project number. It may sound difficult but the process is pretty straight-forward. But, there are instances where this simple decision or action can travel to the context of complicated.

For example, say a donor attended the college and would like to start a scholarship with the Foundation. During their time at the college, they played on the baseball team, was involved in multiple theatrical events, and graduated with a degree in mathematics. While completing their scholarship agreement they state that they would like the scholarship to be awarded each semester to an athlete, math student, or a student studying humanities. Now the simple process of creating a project for the accounting system has taken a turn and has become complicated. No longer can a code be used as the fourth through sixth digit as there are now three codes involved in the decision. Snowden & Boone (2007) stated that complicated decisions can be made easier with the use of an expert. Levine (2009) hinted that face to face conversations are a great way to solve a conflict or make a decision.  In these situations, I must turn to members of the Foundation to help me make a successful decision. These are the coworkers who have spoken with the donor and better understand their wishes. They are able to tell me which code to use to set up the project which returns the decision back to the simple context.

I recently encountered another situation or decision that covered multiple contexts. In February my girlfriend and I decided to take an extended weekend trip to New York City. As we were researching the places to go and things to see, we decided that we wanted to solely utilize the subway system while in the city. When discussing our decision with family and friends we were met with questions such as ‘Are you sure because that seems very complicated? Are you sure you will not get lost?’ To be honest, this was also one of our concerns but we were steadfast in our decision. According to NYC by Natives (n.d.), “Most natives will tell you that there is no better way to get around New York City then riding the subway. It’s faster than driving (particularly in Manhattan), it’s relatively clean, and safe if you follow some easy suggestions” (para. 2).

By the first afternoon, we were astonished how easy the subway system in New York City was. The streets are numbered one through approximately two hundred and twenty. One set of lines runs north and south and another set of lines runs east and west. By the first night, we were able to use the subway to find the residence in which we were staying, go to Battery Park to get a view of the Statue of Liberty and find the restaurant where we made dinner reservations. And two days into our visit we believed we were experts of the subway system.

Snowden (2010) warned about being complacent in the simple zone. He warned that if you start to believe that things are simple and ordered and that past successes cannot lead to future failure then you may find yourself in a crisis. This is what happened to us with the subway. The morning that we were to fly back to Florida, we decided that we wanted to go down to see Wall Street and the 9/11 museum. We researched and realized they were in close proximity and decided that we had enough time to see them both.

We took the subway down, spent a little time at each location, took some pictures and decided it was getting close to the time that we needed to head back in order to make our flight. This is where the “simple” made its way to “complex” and possibly even “chaotic”. That Sunday afternoon an event was taking place that we did not foresee. Several subway lines were closed to clean the tracks as is customary in NYC. As we went to our trusty line we realized it was closed. We overzealously thought that we could walk a couple of blocks down to the next subway stop that we saw while exploring. Bad news- this line was also closed. The seemingly simple task of catching a subway back to where we were staying was no longer simple because we could not find a train heading north.

We overheard some local saying that they could catch the M to the 1 to the P to the 6 (or some variation of those lines). To the locals, the system was still very simple. They were able to use the Cynefin framework to easily travel between contexts. My girlfriend and I were not prepared for the lines to be closed therefore created a crisis. We were eventually able to get back to where we needed to be (with the help of multiple locals and subway workers) and make our flight. But this experience taught me that simple tasks can quickly shift to complex or complicated context if the decision maker or leader does not expect the unknown.

Overall, the Cynefin framework is a great resource for making decisions. The decision maker must take a look at the situation to determine the context that should be used to make a decision. But, they must also be aware of decisions or instances that can encompass multiple frames.

References

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

NYC by Natives. (n.d.). New York City subway guide: Riding the NYC subway made easy. Retrieved from http://www.nycbynatives.com/visitors_center/nyc_subway_instructions.php

Snowden, D. J. & Boone, M.E., (2007).  A leader’s framework for decision making.  Harvard Business Review, 85(11), Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making%20

Snowden, D. (2010). The Cynefin Framework. Cognitive Edge Video. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be  

A632.7.3.RB- Collaborative Decision-making- Trey McNeil

Collaboration can be a critical part of decision-making and conflict resolution. How can two parties make an informed decision or reach a resolution to an ongoing conflict if they do not work together to solve the problem? Huesbsch (n.d.) stated that collaboration can lead to respect between co-workers as they go through the process of creative problem-solving. There have been times where I have successfully used collaboration to solve a conflict or make a good decision. There have also been times where I have failed to collaborate with other stakeholders leading to unsuccessful conflict resolution and poor decisions. There have been several instances that have occurred at work over the last several months.

Before I get into the particular decisions and conflicts, I first have to give you a little background on several changes that have occurred over the last several months. Last September I was told that there would be some lateral movement in the department and I have been chosen as one of the individuals that will be given new duties. The finance department of the college at which I am employed oversees the accounting of many different areas including cash management, the Foundation, local TV station of the college, grants, budget, and accounts payable. I had worked in many different areas including budget and the TV station but had been the accountant for the Foundation for the last six years. I was informed that I would now be transferred to cash management. The position of Foundation accountant would now be combined with the budget department and the accountant working for budget would now also be handling the Foundation. Is your head spinning yet? I know mine has been for the last several months.

After several months of training and learning my new job duties, another decision was made that threw several people in the department another curveball. The coworker who took my old position would now be transferred into a new position in the department and I would be moved back to my original post working for the Foundation. From a leadership perspective, I understand the hustle and bustle that has occurred over the last couple of months. I had been in my position for many years and they wanted me to branch out and learn new skills. The coworker who took my position was trained as my backup so the move made sense in that regard. The position that she transferred to during the second move was a mandatory position that the President created in our department and she was the by far the best fit for the position. I could break down the decision of leadership and how collaboration and strategy may have changed things but I will focus more on how the second round of musical chairs created conflict, discord, and poor decisions in the department.

When the second round of transitions was announced in March the employees involved were informed that the change would be effective April 1, 2017.  We were told that on that date each person would begin doing their new job duties. Unfortunately, this process was delayed due to not being able to find a suitable candidate to fill the cash management position. After several meetings, it was determined that May 1, 2017, would be the new effective date. May then turned into June which then became July. The date has now been labeled undetermined due to the year-end process. I am not saying all of this to complain because I go to work each day to help the company in any way I can. The continual date change plays a part in the conflict because it was determined that over this time period two employees would share the responsibility for three positions. Though we had initial meetings to determine who would do what over the following months, plans do not always work out the way they are supposed to. Due to the multiple moving pieces involved in each position, there were instances where decisions were made without collaborating with the other stakeholders which led to conflict. Two decisions come to mind that created duplicate work that could have been avoided with proper collaboration.

The first incorrect decision I made involved a cash management task. The college has multiple bank accounts, vendors, and cashiers, so a spreadsheet design was created several years ago to ease the pain of reconciling the monthly bank account. A report can be printed from the accounting system to help create the manual spreadsheet. After I was told that I would not be moving over to my new position at the end of May, I made the decision that I should continue to work on the monthly spreadsheet like I had in previous months. I printed the document from the system and began to create the spreadsheet for April. After about a day and a half of manual input, I began the monthly reconciliation process. I had been working on reconciling for about a day or two when my coworker (there are two accountants in the cash management department) came in to ask me to look over something with her. When she saw what I was working on she began to laugh because she was working on the same thing and had been for a couple of days. She was under the impression that I was now working on my new duties and the lack of collaboration created duplicate effort.

The second example involved a budget project. Most budget transfers can be made easily in the system, but there are some transfers that must be uploaded via a spreadsheet. A couple of weeks ago I received an email requesting a budget upload but did not realize it also went to the other accountant who has been tasked with helping out with budget. Long story short, and I’m sure you know where this is headed when I was just finishing up the spreadsheet I received an email that the upload was complete. The other accountant completed the task.

What do these two examples have in common? Lack of collaboration with my fellow coworkers (other stakeholders)! Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther (2001) stated that observing the frames of different stakeholders may allow you to identify any potential conflict. These two situations are perfect examples of the poor decisions that can be made if a lack of collaboration between stakeholders exists. There are several ways that stakeholder involvement could have improved these decisions.

First, collaboration would have given us a clear vision. Levine (2009) listed nine questions that should arise in any conflict. The first question listed was “Does the preliminary vision fit everyone’s view of the outcome” (Levine, 2009, p. 137). In both examples, the outcome was to complete the task at hand, but neither I nor my coworker(s) thought to check with one another about our vision. Secondly, collaboration could also have contributed to the department meeting its goals successfully. Collaboration between stakeholders could have also have saved employees for completing duplicate work. Each employee was under the impression that they were supposed to complete the task, so they did not bother to communicate with the other employee. This lack of collaboration caused wasted time in the department which is the fourth reason shareholder involvement should have existed in these examples. Finally, stakeholder involvement could have created a supportive environment in which we could improve the decision-making process. If we would have communicated with one another then we could have developed a better plan regarding how to divide the work so it was not duplicated. Also, emotions run high during stressful situations and finding out that work was duplicated and time was wasted was a bit stressful.   

As I looked back on the decisions I made and their consequences, I began to contemplate if there was anyone else who would have added value to the process. I would like to say that there was. Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther (2001) argued that decision-making should involve getting advice from other individuals such as experts or customers. There were already several meetings that had taken place about how the work would be managed over the following months. I may have been able to ask the advice of my supervisor but what I should have done was reach out to my coworker. A simple conversation would have made the decision much easier and the conflict would have been avoided.

This assignment and recollection of decisions taught me three valuable lessons that will allow me to make better decisions in the future. First, collaboration between other stakeholders is an important portion of the decision-making process. I must let go of my assumptions and have a conversation with my coworkers in complex or abnormal situations. I also learned that I need to stop and ask myself questions like “Does the preliminary vision take care of all specific concerns in the situation? or What needs correcting or adjusting? (Levine, 2009). These simple questions can change the outcome of a decision. Finally, I learned that slowing down can save time in the long run. Because I did not slow down for a minute and communicate with my coworker I ended up wasting time. The amount of time it would have taken to communicate and collaborate was far less than the time wasted in duplicate work.

References 

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

Huesbsch, R. (n.d.). The advantages & disadvantages of collaborating conflict management. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-collaborating-conflict-management-36052.html

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- Trey McNeil

I am an introvert who tries to avoid conflict at all cost. There have been instances where I have chosen to give in rather than disclose that my opinion or reasoning conflicted with another person. I am a peaceful person who tries to treat everyone with respect, so I generally have a conflict with the idea of conflict. Though I do not like conflict, I have learned that giving in and running away from it is not always the healthiest way to deal with a part of life that will occur as we interact with one another. So, there are times where I have stood up for myself and my values creating a conflict. An example at work comes to mind.

First, let me lay out a little background. After college, I was hired as an accounting clerk at a local law firm in Mississippi. After about four and a half years of working for this business, my girlfriend and I decided to move to Florida (I use the word girlfriend loosely as we have been together for over twelve years). After several months of searching, I was offered a position as an accountant for a local college. As an individual who suffered from low self-esteem, being offered the position of an accountant was huge for me and I did not want to do anything to take away from the opportunity, especially since company policy was to place new employees on a sixty-day probationary period.

I apologize for the mundane topic of conversation but I must give you a little background on our accounting system and the breakdown of revenue donations. As the college receives donations, they are placed into different divisions such as fundraising, administration, scholarships, programs, or capital. About a month after I started, I was working on the Board reports trying to produce a chart for the quarterly revenues. The former Controller came to my desk to check on me and see how everything was going. They then asked me to do something that blindsided me then and still gives me chills some nine years later, which is where the conflict began. They decided to fill me in on the previous Board meeting and told me that the Board was questioning the low number of program donations. So, they asked me to move a portion of the revenue that was received for capital into the programs ‘bucket.’ As a new employee, I did not want to seem insubordinate, but I also did not want to break any ethical values that I held, so I held an attitude of resolution (Levine, 2009).

Levine (2009) stated that dialogue is an important piece of conflict negotiation, so I tried to tell my side of the story and how I felt about the request.  The main issue in this conflict was that I felt like I was not being heard. When I laid out my side of the story, which included my concerns, the Controller simply blew them off. They said that we are not inflating or deflating revenue so we are really not doing anything improper or illegal. They said that we were simply redistributing the revenue while the total remained unaltered. Levine (2009) hinted that conflict resolution tends to shut down when one person views the conflict as winning or losing. Both parties must see the conflict through the eyes of resolution. I do not believe the Controller was attempting to resolve the conflict as their line of thinking was one of winning. According to Adams (2015), they had the idea that they held the power in the conflict so they would win and I would lose. Because the Controller did not share my attitude of resolution, the Cycle of Resolution, according to Levine (2009), was not completed as we did not get current and complete or reach a new agreement in principle.

One of the reasons this conflict was never resolved is because not only did I find what they were asking me to do wrong on a professional level, I also found it wrong on an ethical level. According to LaFollette (2007), some individuals make decisions based on principles alone while the consequences of the decisions become moot. After a night of soul-searching, I decided that I could not do what was being asked and a resolution to the conflict would not be reached. I am not sure if she eventually adjusted the revenue but I know this instance changed our relationship. In this situation, the cost of conflict was much higher than I would have signed up for. This conflict caused the trust to broken from both perspectives and did not allow a great relationship to form. Unfortunately, this Controller was let go from the company a couple of years later, so we never able to be very close.

Levine (2009) offered ten principles of new thinking in regards to a conflict. I would like to analyze the conflict utilizing several of the principles to determine if the outcome or cost of conflict would have been altered. One of the principles offered by Levine (2009) was creating a partnership.  “People who are working together often waste resources because they do not have a clearly articulated vision of where they were going and how they would get there” (Levine, 2009, p. 53).This conflict lacked a partnership and this lacking created a blurry vision of the finish line. We were both on separate pages and were not able to work together to come up with a unified plan on how to resolve the issue. This lack of partnership did not waste physical resources, but it did create a misuse of resources because we did not create a strong bond. This individual had been in the accounting field for over thirty years and could have been a great source of information.

‘Becoming open’ is another useful principle that Levine (2009) offered in conflict resolution. This is an action I attempted to do in telling my side of the story, but for conflict resolution to take place, the openness must be reciprocated by both parties. The former Controller did not care about being open or creating a resolution as they were more concerned with winning the conflict.  I’ll admit that I was not open to their line of thinking either. If openness and listening would have taken place on both sides a resolution may have been reached.

Levine (2009) also stated that individual should not only rely on intuition and feelings but also disclose these feelings. I attempted to use intuition in the conflict resolution process. I let the other party know that I did not believe the changes were something that should be made. I tried to tell them that if the Board would like to see higher revenue in the programs division then the Foundation should attempt to change their agenda and try to raise more program dollars. All of my feelings and intuition fell on deaf ears. If the other party would have been more amiable to let me know their feelings and intuition then there is a good chance the conflict may have ended differently.

Finally, Levine (2009) stated that individuals must become ResponseAble when dealing with conflicts. In other words, they must take charge and not avoid conflict. This is one principle in which I acted upon in the described conflict. Though my action of becoming ResponseAble created the conflict, I believe that it was a useful action. If I would have given in to the request then I may have put myself in a professional hole not long after I started at the company. I ran the risk of being disciplined for not acting upon their request, but that is a decision I could have lived with. I’m not sure I could have lived with my decision if I gave in to their wish.

References

Adams, M. (2015). Do you use power to resolve your conflicts. Retrieved from http://www.gordontraining.com/leadership/do-you-use-power-to-resolve-your-conflicts/#

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell

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