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

Is leader confidence overrated? According to Professor Baba Shiv in his YouTube video, Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making, confidence is vastly underrated. Confidence is a subject that I can relate well with. For me, confidence has been somewhat of a dilemma, it’s not something I can fake or easily display if I don’t feel it within myself. As a senior non-commissioned officer who retrained to a new career function within the last two years, I’ve been placed in multiple roles in which I have little to no experience. The lack of experience caused me to second guess my decisions and often rely on others for advice. Observing a lack of confidence in yourself presents a negative feeling that can lead to lack of passion in other situations or scenarios. According to Shiv (2011) a lack of confidence has a direct impact on how motivated you are to accomplish a task. Even though I’ve faced confidence setbacks, I stay positive, encouraged by the fact that confidence comes with learning and experience. As I become more comfortable in my knowledge I feel confidence will develop intuitively.

One particular situation I felt confident in was during a recent off station exercise that took place in southern Arizona. As a previous mobility loadmaster I specialized in evaluating aircraft load plans. During the exercise, my primary function was to confirm and supervise the movement of personnel and cargo, often loading the aircraft to its full capacity. My experience allowed me to quickly confirm logistical movements with senior leadership. As my junior airmen came to me with concerns and hesitation, I felt confident explaining the plan and motivating them to accomplish the task. The emotions felt after I successfully carried out the movement were great, I walked into the squadron with pride that my plan directly contributed to the mission success.

A different scenario took place earlier this year during an overseas deployment. This was my first deployment as the senior enlisted leader. Within the first week I was challenged with negative attitudes and overall disruptive behavior by my enlisted team. It’s important for me to explain my attitude and expectations in this scenario. I consider myself a team player, willing to work with anyone while displaying a positive attitude. I had real trouble understanding how these young sergeants could display such a negative attitude on a daily basis. Their poor attitude and my lack of ability to gain their trust made me question my leadership style. During a couple of occasions, certain individuals pushed me to the point of losing control of my emotions. Eventually I was forced to pull these specific individuals aside for one on one counseling. After four months deployed and several months home I still have trouble communicating with one specific individual. However, I also take faith in the bigger picture. While I have trouble successfully communicating with one individual, overall, I feel very comfortable and confident relating to and leading most others in the organization.

Over the course of the last year I have been put in situations where I felt comfortable and confident leading teams, while also dealing with situations and decisions I didn’t feel confident in handling. The confidence I display comes from a very genuine part of my personality. While some of my peers are able to display confidence during times of uncertainty, I personally feel there is no shame in admitting when you don’t know the answer. Leading people has been one of the greatest challenges I’ve faced during my time in the military, however, I feel that keeping a positive attitude and learning from my mistakes will make me a better leader in the future.

Reference:

Shiv, B. (2011). Baba Shiv: Brain research at Stanford: Decision Making. [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKfl4owWKc

A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

The Cynefin framework is a tool that can help leaders understand the context of they are dealing with in order to make better decisions and avoid possible problems associated with traditional management styles. Simply put, the Cynefin framework is a “sense making device” that enables managers to make sense of their own and other people’s decisions. The framework offers five decision-making domains: simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disorder.

The simple domain represents the obvious relationship between cause and effect and require straight forward management. I relate this to an employee arriving late to work and taking the steps to appropriately counsel the individual.

Complicated domain decisions are also derived from cause and effect, however, there is a range of correct answers. Correct decisions in this domain require expertise and detailed analysis. In the complicated domain cause and effect are not aren’t clear. An example given by Snowden is to know something is wrong with your car because of audible engine problems, the response should be to take your vehicle to a mechanic. In this context, leaders must be able to sense, categorized, and respond in order to make sound decisions. As an aircrew member, I am faced with investigating and analyzing aircraft problems in the same way a mechanic might troubleshoot a vehicle. Sensors indicate some mechanical problem, the pilots take notice and verbalize to the crew, and the aircrew members analyze possible problems. The decisions made by the crew as a whole determine whether or not the flight mission will continue or cancel. Snowden & Boone (2007) speak to the possibility of “analysis paralysis”, this is when decisions cannot be agreed upon because of ego or entrained thinking. Aircrews are trained to practice crew resource management in order to smartly avoid this scenario, especially in a combat environment.

In the complex domain decisions are beginning to get very complicated and unpredictable. Leaders in this situation are faced with problems that may require experimentation in order to arrive at success. This reminds me of the unpredictable success of Facebook and the many paths social media could have taken. As Snowden & Boone explain, the opportunities may lie in innovation, creativity, and new business models.

The chaotic domain states that relationships between cause and effect are impossible to determine, there is no pattern or discernable management practice. As with the military and wartime, the only action is for leadership to establish order and effectively communicate. Snowden & Boone relate this situation to the establishment of crisis management teams. While your crisis management team is working, the focus should be the formation of a second team actively searching for alternative opportunities. Again, this draws me to consider extreme battlefield conditions. When faced with chaos, improvisation is a necessary function.

Leaders require understanding of what context their working in. This helps them manage people and processes in order to succeed. As technology and processes evolve there seems to be a need to evolve leadership decision making to match the times. The rise of the tech industry speaks volumes to the need of understanding complex and chaotic decision-making environments. This seems to be the world where traditional management has failed and visionary experimentation has produced world icons. Embracing complexity seems inevitable during times of uncertainty. As Snowden (2011) explains, The Cynefin framework makes sense of complexity in both known and unknown scenarios in which the data precedes the framework in order to provide a best practice.

References:

Snowden, D.J. (2011). David Snowden: The cynefin framework. [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8

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

A632.7.3.RB - Collaborative Decision Making

Conflict in the workplace and in our personal lives are often resolved with the collaboration and communication of outside sources. Levine outlines a step by step process which he titled the “Cycle of Resolution.” During the Cycle of Resolution, the first step is for each individual to tell their story, from beginning to end, without interruption. Levine (2009, pg.122) states “getting everyone’s story out on the table defines the problem space, validates everyone’s position, and reveals everyone’s interests.” The art of active listening as a mediator requires remaining neutral without having a predetermined vision of the outcome, as outcomes may change during the process. As Levine (2009, pg.134) states, “try as you may, you will have a vision.” Levine (2009, pg.137) developed nine questioned to test and discuss preliminary visions among conflict participants.

Within the last year I was tasked by senior leadership to initiate an investigation on two information technology personnel and the program they managed. The investigation was initiated to determine if someone was directly responsible for the mismanagement of tens of thousands of dollars of equipment. If found negligent, the program managers faced the possibility of significant punitive punishment and financial liability. The process started by interviewing the members to receive their story of how and why the equipment was not accounted for. Heathfield (2016) describes how mediators should not interview persons involved in conflict separately, instead they should each give their version of the story during the same meeting. As a neutral participant, I had no vested interest except to understand how the accountability process was broken. After a month of detailed review, the individuals involved were found equally negligent in completing initial inventories, however, their leadership was also identified as negligent in identifying mismanagement. The chain a responsibility didn’t lie solely with the two program managers but also with their command leadership.

After discussion with command leadership, the decision was made to acknowledge poor accountability practices over the course of a two-year period. The program would receive specific attention from the commander, however it was determined not to hold anyone financially responsible for the losses. As it turns out, the loss of electronic equipment in a combat zone was not isolated to our unit. Multiple units across the area of responsibility would come and go, unknowingly taking items that didn’t belong to them. The objective of the instigation was satisfied, leadership finally understood how it was possible to lose accountability of thirty thousand dollars of equipment.

The collaborative process used in this resolution scenario utilized myself as a mediator, an outside subject matter expert, and the camp commander as the visionary. When presented with all of the facts the commander guided the punitive expectations, which were limited to verbal counseling. The senior enlisted manager was useful in providing an example of how he experienced the same scenario in a previous unit. He was more understanding of process and offered sound advice how to prevent future inventory losses.

One lesson I learned from this experience was to not let others opinion bias my investigative process. As it turned out, most of the predictions about the missing items were wrong. Another was to focus on exactly how and why the program was mismanaged, from senior leadership down to the lowest ranking Airman. There were many more responsible for inventory management than initially assumed. The third lesson learned was to focus on resolving the problem instead of pointing fingers and singling out individuals. The camp commander was much more interested in the fix instead of punishment.

References:

Heathfield, S.M. (2016). Workplace conflict resolution. The Balance. Retrieved from:          https://www.thebalance.com/workplace-conflict-resolution-1918675

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