group think sharing decision making. problems with groups governing values ● win, don't lose...
TRANSCRIPT
Group Think
Sharing Decision Making
Problems with GroupsGoverning Values● Win, don't lose
➢ Don't listen–someone may disprove your POV
● Maintain control➢ Brainstorming may lead in unanticipated
and uncomfortable directions● Avoid Embarrassment and Stay Rational
➢ Revealing POV and logic may expose you to ridicule or negative criticism
Leader Effectiveness Training
● Problem solving steps:
1. identify and define the problem
2. generate alternative solutions
3. evaluate alternative solutions
4. decision making
5. implementing the decision
6. follow up to evaluate the solution● However, the process is a bit fuzzy.
Success is all in the ego-less active listening.
Group Decision Making
● Four negative outcomes● No consensus
➢ Problem not sufficiently engaged➢ Postpone making a decision➢ Suffer whatever costs accrue from delay
Group Decision Making
● Bad consensus “Groupthink”➢ Poor decision: does not make full use of
members' logic and data➢ Over-responsible member's views prevail➢ Under-responsible member's views ignored
or suppressed, they retreat and watch.➢ Due to conformity pressures,➢ Fear of conflict,➢ Anxiety: fear of rejection, abandonment
Group Decision Making
● False consensus➢ Group appears to reach a choice➢ Under-responsible members have not
voiced their opposition➢ Silent parties resist taking action,➢ Subsequently undermine the choice,➢ In the future, ask to revisit the choice.➢ We kid ourselves that we agreed.
Group Decision Making
● Weak consensus➢ Path of least resistance➢ Directive to make a decision quickly➢ The choice has minimal enthusiasm or
commitment➢ Choice is unwound or reversed at the
first sign of trouble
The Choice Structuring Process
● Produces robust and compelling choices
➢ Sound logic applied to valid, representative data
➢ Logic and data subject to thorough and open testing
➢ Representative data comes from all relevant group members
● Without violating Governing Values● Without triggering Responsibility Virus
Reframing
Existing Frame● I know the right answer
● Other is uninformed or ill-intentioned
● Task: Get them to see things my way
Altered Frame
I have a wealth of experience but I may not see or understand everything
Other may see things I don't see which may contribute to my understanding
Use our collective talents to make the best choice
How we reason (Kathryn Schulz)
● Humans use inductive reasoning➢ From the particular to the general➢ Pattern recognition used to
learn language, organize the world into meaningful categories, and grasp the relationship between cause and effect
➢ conclusions are not necessarily true,but they are probably true.
➢ It's fast, effective, subjective but agreeable.
➢ “The giraffe had a very long ____.”
How we reason (Martin)
● Sally and Richard had a meeting with a customer
● Customer: “I really like VisionTech. It has been an innovative leader for a long time. But I'm coming under increasing pressure and have to make tradeoffs.”
Ladder of Inference (Martin/Argyris)
● Sally selects her data: ➢ “I really like VisionTech. It has been an
innovative leader for a long time.”➢ Didn't take notes. Can't remember
everything. (It's what I want to hear.)● Make sense of data:
➢ What is the particular observation here?➢ customer values our leadership and
innovation
Ladder of Inference (Martin/Argyris)
● Sally names (categorizes) her data: ➢ From particular observation to general
pattern➢ customers value leadership and innovation
● Understand / evaluate:➢ Induction to Intuition➢ customers will stick with us if we continue
to lead and innovate● Decision for success:
➢ leadership and innovation are most critical
Ladder of Inference (Martin/Argyris)
● Richard selects his data: ➢ “But I'm coming under increasing
pressure and have to make tradeoffs.”➢ Didn't take notes. Can't remember
everything. (It's what I want to hear.)● Make sense of data:
➢ What is the particular observation here?➢ customer will make tradeoff against us
because of cost pressure
Ladder of Inference (Martin/Argyris)
● Richard names (categorizes) his data: ➢ From particular observation to general
pattern➢ customers are feeling intense cost pressure
● Understand / evaluate:➢ Induction to Intuition➢ customers will migrate away from us due to
their cost concerns and our pricing● Decision for success:
➢ Reduce our costs to be more price competitive
Ladder of Inference (Martin/Argyris)
● When Sally and Richard meet...● Sally says we need more R&D● Richard says we need a more efficient supply chain
● The other one “simply doesn't get it”● Governing Values push to them to withdraw rather than risk an embarrassing or defeating challenge to their data and logic.
How bad news travels up
Our development process is a● venture of creativity (the CEO was told)● undertaking of new ideas (the VP heard)● collective of stimulated germination● accumulation of forceful fertilizer● raised mass of powerful manure● mound of strong smelling crap● pile of stinking shite (the developer said)
Group Process Principles
● We all Win, No one Loses➢ Disassociate options from individuals➢ Options up for discussion are owned by
group➢ Conflicting positions resolved based on
testing data and logic.
Group Process Principles
● Maintain Control➢ When supporting an option, individual can
affect how the option is considered by others
➢ When opposing an option, individual can set the test for the option and the standard of proof for the test
● Avoid embarrassment➢ Disassociate options from individuals➢ Draw out all options, even if outlandish
Group Process Principles
● Stay rational➢ A logical, not emotional, reason for
including every option
● The process inoculates against downsides of Governing Values
Brainstorming
● Brainstorming as originally defined by Alex Osborn in 1953 effective at generating lots of ideas...
● Just not quality ideas
Brainstorming
For quality ideas:
1. Individual thought and generation
2. (Anonymous) posting of ideas to wiki or other social collaboration
3. Verbal and text discussion posted while allowing further posting of ideas
➢ Further posting avoids queuing/waiting to speak and thus forgetting.
➢ Posting allows everyone to catch up.
Choice Structuring Process
● What is the issue?
1. Frame Choice Options● convert issue into at least two mutually independent options that might resolve the issue
➢ Choice is an irreversible commitment➢ Group must understand consequences➢ Any member can add an option to choice
set
Choice Structuring Process2. Brainstorm Possible Options● Option told in the form of a story describing a positive outcome.
● Story has internal consistency in its logic● Does not need to be proven at this point as long as it could be valid
● Story tells why an option could make sense
● Easier to understand than data and logic
Choice Structuring Process3. Specify Conditions● What conditions must be substantiated to believe that the story is sound?
● Reverse engineer from an assumed valid conclusion to the logic and data that would have to hold true.
● Not whether the conditions are trueJust what would have to be true
● Done by the group, not the individual who raised the option
Choice Structuring Process
3. Specify Conditions● Those with reservations speak out.● If the conditions survive the test, public validation will generate commitment.
● If the conditions are invalidated, the option has been fairly considered and failed on its merits (not because anyone was wrong)
Choice Structuring Process
4. Identify Barriers to Choice● What conditions from step 3. are least likely to hold true?
● Skeptical members are taken seriously
Choice Structuring Process
5. Design Valid Tests ● Key barrier conditions are tested in ways the entire group will find compelling
● Group must regard test as valid● Most skeptical member is critical for test design. They will have highest standard of proof for the test.
● May be multiple tests for a condition
Choice Structuring Process
5. Design Valid Tests ● Tests enable each member to believe in the choice, commit to it, and take action if the analysis confirms the condition
Choice Structuring Process
6. Conduct Analysis● Do analysis prescribed by test design● Most expensive and time-consuming part of choice process
● Test conditions in reverse order of group's confidence. It quickly eliminates options and other tests for those options.
● Skeptical member oversees the analysis
Choice Structuring Process
6. Conduct Analysis● Skeptic sees that test is done with rigorous standards
● If skeptic says the condition is confirmed, group will find the result compelling
Choice Structuring Process
7. Make the Choice● Group has a shared understanding of logic and data supporting each option
● Group has designed tests for each condition acting as a barrier to choice
● Most skeptical member has set standard of proof and has overseen the analysis
● Group reviews test results and makes the often obvious choice.
Choice Structuring Process
● The process is about suggesting any option that presents a clear choice of action.
● Only positive conditions are proposed to support the option.
● Conditions are tested by the most skeptical.
● If the option is set aside, it is not the option that was bad but the condition to support it was not present.