A642.5.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A642.5.3.RB – Making Smart Groups

            After reviewing and reflecting on Cass R. Sunstein and Reid Hastie’s article, “Making Dumb Groups Smarter” (2014), the concepts used are without a doubt useful in promoting innovation within any organization. Many times, we all failed pray to our own insecurities and reflected poorly on our actions while working for an organization. Often times, groups are responsible for the success or failure of a company. It is known that with time, the human kind has learned to make decisions based on other’s opinions. Groups are what consolidate an organization, and therefore, each individual representing a group matters. As it is mentioned by Sunstein and Hastie, groups provide an advantage, “when there are many who contribute to the process of deliberation, each can bring his share of goodness and moral prudence…some appreciate one part, some another, and all together appreciate all” (2014, para. 2).

            While working for a medical facility, I have learned the importance of teamwork and group settings. I work as a Medical Assistant (M.A.) to Podiatrist’s doctors. Regularly, I depend on two to three other Medical Assistants who are vital to accomplish our day-to-day tasks. We constantly work with two doctors each day and that means each doctor requires at least two M.A.’s. If one calls in sick, the entire system gets ruin as we all depend on each other. Moreover, when making decisions as a group setting, our opinions count and doctors are constantly trying to get information from my team in order to make positive changes in the organization. It is obvious, that each M.A. has their own agenda and believes, and arriving to a conclusion can bring its challenges.

            Naturally, the Harvard Business Review (2014), suggested that the two most known problems in groups is when an individual finds him or her-self misreading signals and reputational pressures, which in turn makes people unable to open up about their opinions fearing some confrontation, penalty, or even shame. Unlike John Canfield and Greg Smith (2011) advocated, that “when trying to solve problems, work first to identify how the work is actually being done by documenting the process where it’s happening, with the people doing the work, and with data from the process” (p. 79). The process flow chart from the textbook, “Imagine” (2011), provides step-by-step guidance into leading a team where misunderstandings are not a common fallacy. Instead, it recognizes that open conversations “will often uncover inconsistencies about how people are interpreting instructions and carrying out their activities” (Canfield & Smith, 2011, p. 79).

            Being aware of Sunstein and Hastie’s group concepts and believes provides a significant opportunity to avoid common mistakes, also known as heuristics or biases that lead to individuals awry. Concepts such as planning fallacy, which means when individuals miscalculate the real amount of time or money a project will take or cost for instance. Overconfidence is another term that leads to misinterpretation and lack of humility. Moreover, framing effects is yet another term that “influences our decisions according to the semantics of how the options are presented” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, para. 9). For example, the company I work for incentivizes the staff by letting us know that if we meet at least ten percent of what we did last year on the same month, then we get a one-hundred and fifty dollars check bonus every two weeks. What they avoid to tell us is that if we not meet that criterion, then we loose the one hundred and fifty dollars plus future salary upgrades.

            Similarly, organizations not only require having great teamwork, but also sufficing innovation levels that will lead to successful outcomes. “Combining what and how innovation with strategic thinking and action allows you to establish a desirable place in the external scheme of things. You can successfully renew, transform and disrupt to create a better world” (Mckeown, 2014, p. 1678). In the same manner Sunstein and Hastie (2014) believed that making group wiser is a way of innovating. One of their solutions suggested that, “leaders can structure group deliberations to make them more likely to succeed. One very simple way is to let others speak first. Another is to assign specific roles or areas of expertise to members of the group. The key is encouraging individuals to share their diverse knowledge rather than suppress it” (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014, para. 25).

            In conclusion, all authors provided an array of different terms and guidance on how to lead teams in a smarter way. All changes are to be considered innovational changes since they could potentially change the structure of an organization. Therefore, I believe they could all be combined into a process that can be used to promote innovation across an entire organization. From Canfield and Smith (2011), I would definitely take over step one; establish team, with the assigned process goals. This particular process allows the leader to mold the group necessities as they encounter them rather than making strict, non-changeable rules. Having group flexibility is extremely important. Furthermore, I would consider combining Sunstein and Hastie’s  (2014) process of assigning roles since, “in such a group, sensible information aggregation would be far more likely, simply because every member would know that each of the others had something to contribute” (para. 23). Last but not least, Mckeown (2014) advised, “winning with innovation depends on what you view as success and the actions of many different events that may be influenced but rarely controlled” (p. 1694). I would definitely take this advice into consideration while uniting all the author’s process to make a single innovative process.

References

Canfield, J. & Smith, G. (2011). Imagine: Ideation skills for improvement and innovation today. Blake Lake Press.

Mckeown, M. (2014). The innovation book: How to manage ideas and execution for outstanding results (1^st Ed.). FT Press.

Sunstein, C.R. & Hastie, R. (2014). Making dumb groups smarter. Harvard Business Review. 92.12.91-98.

A634.9.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A634.9.4.RB – A Reflection of Our Learning

            I believe one of the most important aspects of the course came packaged in the posting of reflective blogs. I realized that after reading the chapters with various opportunities to focus on a better understanding of the far-reaching impact of ethics on every day life, I found more benefit in assessing where I fit in the scheme of my career. I enjoyed the discussion boards where colleagues from just about every diverse angle of career provided a different and interesting point of view. Often, they brought in different interpretations, which helped me realize the importance of active listening. I had to really think through my initial post, and find references that supported my opinions, or concerns about the topic. It made me stop and think about what I really believe, and want to stand for in my life. I believe that reading the input from my colleagues was beneficial; however, I think that searching for additional references for the replies to others did not always encourage a discussion of the topics. I like the original post with references, but I would like to have more discussion among my colleagues for the replies. I thought that there was more urgency to find sources, rather than have a discussion after the initial post. Some of my best discussions were with people who wanted to review the ethics, or critical thinking on a specific conversation topic. The original sources were not always articles that supported my beliefs, but supported information on the topic. 

            Moreover, I liked the general assignments because they allowed first person, which gave more meaning to the assignment. I find that first person helps me to see how I fit into the viewpoint.  When I have to refer to myself as “the author”, or “this researcher”, it is easy to lose the value of what I have learned. I think that reflective blogs are more valuable as they personalize the information. Speaking in the third person takes away from the realism that should be part of the posting. I also found that most of the issues that fall under the broad life topic of ethics were also related to my career field. Each time the topic discussed seemed to be relevant for each person. For example, being a medical assistant and wanting to become a doctor some day, and the topic of physician-assisted suicide, had personal relevancy. Each of the discussions suggested a value in applying the discussions to both our personal, and professional lives. I appreciated that the selected topics were not restricted in their connection to many different careers. Initially, I feared that the discussions would center more on a philosophical exchange, but after the first couple discussion boards, I was pleasantly surprised that they addressed real world issues. 

            Another recent topic focused on Gun Control, which has become a focal debate for citizens, special interest groups, businesses, and politicians. There is no corner of the planet in which people are not affected by the attention given to gun control. The recent tragedies were very timely in showing that violence touches everyone. The discussions did not restrict the discussion to what was right, or wrong. I really appreciated the idea of asking others why they took the stand they did. I also agree with LaFollette (2007) regarding ethics not always been so clearly black and white to each individual. There is room for degrees of interpretation, and as we saw in gun control, and egoism, there can be restrictions that allow both sides of the debate to declare a win. The context of our choices became an apparent vital component in understanding ethics. 

                                                                                                        

            Overall, I am not sure that there is anything different that I would have done to enhance my learning experience. There was a substantial amount of work, so I did not find myself coming up for air very often. Bedley (n.d.) indicates that “value driven” people focus on core values, while focusing on others. I agree with his statement, but I think the first thing that must be accomplished is a determination of one’s own values. I think that after the reflective blogs as a requirement, most of the take-a-ways from the course will be achieved after the course is over. I believe that until we apply, or find a reason to apply, the process supported through the course, it may not be fully achieved. 

            I believe that the University has put together an excellent course. Nevertheless, each course seems to be slightly repetitive and sometimes it makes it harder to be challenged by an assignment. Additionally, I am very content with the school’s decision about not using the Brain software anymore. I have always been a person that prefers to direct my ideas into a list with a pen and paper. I have never been organized by visual cues. Therefore, the Brain never really helped me into organizing myself, but instead, made it really difficult to find my way around it. It really was a relief not having to work on concept maps anymore. The last recommendation I would make is that although I know this is a graduate level degree; I feel more attention should be focus on the fact that those taking this program online are particularly adults working full-time jobs. And therefore, the amount of load work came to be challenging at times. Needless to say, it was not impossible to commit and deliver the assignments if good time management was arranged. Overall, I really enjoyed this course, as I really got to learn about new topics and also myself, as I came across subjects I was not knowledgeable about and it took me some time to study and getting myself involved. Without a doubt, this class was slightly challenging but good enough to make it interesting.

References

Bedley, G. (n.d.). Value Driven online course, the core ethical values that define and ignite you. National Character Education Center. Retrieved from http://ethicsusa.org/seminars/value-driven-on-line-course-the-core-ethical-values-that-define-and-ignite-you/  

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

A634. 8.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A634.8.3.RB – Gun Control: What is the Answer?

            I believe we all have the right to bear arms. It is our God-given right to protect our families and ourselves by whatever means necessary. It is also our Constitutional right, courtesy of the Second Amendment. Few people know the 2nd Amendment was placed so that citizens of the United States could rise against their own government, create and form militias, and take back their country, should their government get out of control. 

            Our forefathers knew and understood the significance of the right to bear arms and they made sure the common man had the means to defend himself from tyranny and each other. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Freedom is when the government fears the people. Tyranny is when the people fear the government” (We The People Convention, 2013). Our founding Fathers framed the Constitution with great care. It is the supreme law of the land. If anybody wants to change it, do it by due process. If one does not like what it stands for, they are free to leave at any time.

            Guns do not kill people; is people that kill people. There are about “310 million privately owned firearms in this country” (Krouse, 2012).  Why aren’t there 310 million deaths per day or per year if guns are so dangerous? Owning a gun is no more a moral question than asking, “is owning a smart phone moral?” The number of people texting and driving causing fatalities is rising rapidly and may soon out-pace the number of deaths caused by handguns. Drinking and driving already kill more people than guns in this country. Annually, I heard that tobacco dwarfs gun deaths by thirteen to one. Maybe we should be questioning the morality of the legal use and promotion of cigarettes and those who know smoking will kill you instead of worrying about how someone chooses to use a handgun.

            It’s not what you own, it is how you use it that sparks the conversation of what is moral and what is not. Guns, smart phones, automobiles, knives, fertilizer mixed with diesel fuel, IEDs, and anything else that can be used to kill another person are just pieces of hardware. They are not a problem. The software human factor is the problem and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and not by a blanket approach to change the law. Doing so would defy logic and common sense. This position is also supported by LaFollette (2007) “I propose we make handgun owners (and perhaps all gun owners) strictly liable for harm caused by the use of their guns” (p. 3034).

            Our judicial system guarantees equality for all. However, we are not all created equal. Being a woman, I do not possess the physical attributes of most men. "Armed women are better able to protect themselves” (Schwartz, 2008, p. 39). Nevertheless, I am not a gun-owner and never have. Guns will always be dangerous, but people who were never educated on guns bring up the danger.

References:

Krouse, W. J. (2012.) How Many Guns Are in the United States? Gun Control Legislation. Washington DC: United States Congressional Research Service, 14 November. (Q6676)

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

Schwartz, E. (2008). The Right to Bear Arms. Retrieved from: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=8065&sr=HLEAD(The%20Right%20to%20Bear%20Arms)%20and%20date%20is%202008

We the People Convention. (2013). Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.wethepeopleconvention.org/