group think sharing decision making. problems with groups governing values ● win, don't lose...

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.