A632.8.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A632.8.3.RB – Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

            The Cynefin framework was developed as a way to see problems from new viewpoints, identify and assimilate complex concepts, and address current, real world-problems. This process also helps to improve communication and understand the realm of the current situation. The Cynefin framework helps managers and executives sense which context they are in so that they can not only make better decisions, but also problem solve when their preferred management style fails. The goal here is for managers to be able to shift their decision-making styles to match changing business environments. Additionally, the Cynefin framework helps to identify these contexts and systematically approach real issues to find a suitable solution. Given the fact that complex situations occur in many different lights, it is essential to understand these different complexities and apply the Cynefin accordingly. Making sense of the complexities at hand will help to develop reasonable solutions to a problem. The problem with this framework is that often times subtle differences in complexities aren't apparent until it's too late.

            The concept of managing the decision making process suggests that too often the decision maker becomes comfortable and develops a false sense of security in one possibility that may not rely on the most appropriate strategies, subsequently, falling into a crisis. For example, a leader within the medical field may make a decision to pursue the treatment of the public after assuming the existence of an epidemic. However, if the decision maker initiates the decision making from the assumption that all information has been gathered, or that there is a cause an effect situation; the wrong process may be followed, resulting in an incorrect solution. It may be that the framework domain in which the discussion needs to start is one of gathering information without assuming the possibility of a cause and effect relationship. On the other hand, it may also be that the domain of relevance is one where experts must be gathered in order to ask the right question. Recovery from the wrong process can be very costly (De La Rue, 2008).

            The simple domain, observes the relationship between cause and effect that exists, it is predictable, and it can be determined in advance (Snowden, 2010). In this simple domain, the relationship is apparent for every reasonable person. As Snowden (2010) confirms, “this is a sense-categorize response as one sees what is coming, and applies the best practice”. The complicated domain reveals a relationship between cause and effect, with a right answer, but it is not self-evident so it needs to be solved mathematically (Snowden, 2010). The complex is a domain with constraints, and the decision model is probe-sense-response strategy to move progressively toward a solution. The chaotic system necessitates stabilizing the position quickly, and the decision model is act-sense-respond (Snowden, 2010). It is important to very quickly stabilize the situation, and any tactic will most likely represent the new or unique (Snowden, 2010). The primary focus is that one-size fits all approach often espoused by traditional management theory may not be appropriate. The medical field in which my career focuses can benefit from the Cynefin Framework model.  Decision-making must first be understood within the appropriate perspective in order to understand what is needed to develop a solution. 

            In my situation, I once had to make the decision regarding a patient care program. One of the things that I found is that when I rely on the domain of best practices, I am more comfortable with the final solution. The reason I am more comfortable with the solution is that it can be tested, and also survives the ultimate legal testing ground. As many people realize, the medical field is closely tied to life and death choices and at the assistant level, there is little room for creative decision making in the vital decisions. In one opportunity, I had a patient react to a medication and relied on the simple best practice domain. The problem was well understood, and utilized a “scripted” solution.

            In another occasion where a situation fell into the chaotic domain was when one of my coworkers got into the patient’s office room and discovered blood all over the floor. The first thing was to react and stop the bleeding. We were prepared to bring in higher-level doctors in order to determine the cause of the patient’s bleedings. Once we were able to stabilize the patient’s bleeding, the next step was to find out why it happened. After reading evaluating the patient’s charts and illnesses, we were able to see that the patient had scratched his leg with an unidentified item. And since he was under blood-thinner medication, he would not stop bleeding on his own. Eventually, the solution was to provide apply a solution that stops bleeding almost immediately and to provide needed patient training regarding possible consequences.  It should not have been an unusual decision, but the cause of the problem did not seem apparent.  It was important that immediate action be taken and that the appropriate solution be discovered as quickly as possible. The solution was much simpler than the problem appeared.

References

De La Rue, K. (2008).  Understanding complexity – the cynefin framework.  Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/kdelarue/keith-de-la-rue-cynefin-03-presentation

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

Snowden, D.J., and Boone, M.E. (2007). A leaders framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review.

A634.2.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A634.2.4.RB – Theories of Ethics

            Consequentialists claim as cited by LaFollette (2007) “that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (p. 366). When making a moral decision, we must choose the best overall consequences in the greatest interest of all parties involved. Deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or right, and these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences. To garner a better understanding of these two theories lets further look at how they are different according to LaFollette (2007);

The consequentialist thinks the rules are derivative. They are defensible only if following them will bring the best consequence. Deontologists claim that out moral obligations--whatever they are—are defined by the rules, partly independently of consequences. Even when following moral rules does not have the best consequences, we should adhere to them. (p. 381).

            “Deontologists contend there are strict moral limits on what we can do to others. Consequentialists do not contend there are strict moral limits of what we can do to others” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 389). Last week we were given a classical ethical dilemma – The Train Dilemma. In this scenario, a train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. If the switch were thrown, it would put the train on a sidetrack where one child is standing. A consequentialist would look at the best outcome, the death of five children versus the death of one and would pull the switch. For a deontologist, pulling the switch is against the rules therefore all five children will die.

            If humans were unfeeling beings and lacked the ability to think, then deontology would be the theory of choice. Decision-making can be made easily, without thought because they are ground in the rules of what is right and what is wrong. There would be no room for what-if; the decision-making would be equitable and consistent for all. However, we are thinking and feeling human beings. We allow our moral compass to guide us in our decision-making. This also makes our decision making more difficult because we must consider the consequences and the variables surrounding the outcomes. We must also accept the fact that we can and will unintentionally make wrong decisions even though our moral reasoning is correct. Taking into consideration both theories, I would throw the switch.

References

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

A632.7.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A632.7.4.RB – Collaborative Decision Making

            In today’s business world, even the most productive groups of individuals’ experiences some type of conflict. Very seldom will you find collaboration without some degree of conflict; which is not necessarily a bad thing. There are times when leaders will make major decisions without assistance, but as a whole, this is rare. Leaders have to take into consideration how their decisions affect the stakeholders around them. However, when they do make decisions based only on their perspective, there is a propensity of having a myopic vision of the situation. When we have such a myopic view, we tend to do what is best for us, ignoring those around us.  

            As simple as this may sound, we must also keep in perspective that some problems are too complex for an individual to handle alone. A smart person will use collaboration as an opportunity to gain more insight on the conflict. Leaders need to understand the advantages of using collaboration. When individuals are seeking out collaboration, they understand that there is an increase in overall skills, knowledge, and information gained will strengthen and bring credibility to their role as a decision maker. The textbook provided an interesting statement of how we must look for a vessel that is large enough to hold and satisfy all the concerns that each person has in a conflict situation. However, as I have mentioned before, many times we must take the utilitarian approach when looking for a resolution.

            Personally, I feel the very nature of collaboration invites a clash of personality types, conceptual thinking processes, ethical differences, and disagreements on how to define what is the ultimate objective and how to achieve it. Collaboration when used correctly moves stakeholders away from the old traditional way of thinking; thereby, redefining decision-making power as control or domination towards a definition that invited shared authority. Leaders no longer operate in a vacuum; collaboration helps eliminate difficult barriers, increases opportunities for success, enriches the change process, and creates a shared vision for resolution. The bottom line is positive collaborative decision-making impacts many members of any organization; providing a unified guidance in a desired direction. Last but not least, by getting other stakeholders involved, it can help identify questions or concerns that may have been overlooked.

            The last time I had to make the decision to change jobs was one where various stakeholders played a key role in the decision. I was in a position where I was not happy and I got an offer to take a different position. Before I made up my mind, I consulted with my husband, parents, and several close friends and co-workers for insight. I considered the group stakeholders because ultimately my actions would either directly or indirectly impact them. When the new position was offered to me (although it wasn’t exactly where I wanted to be) I knew it would be better than where I was so I really just wanted to get insight from others to help me make a good decision. The position was offered then I discussed it with the various stakeholders. Next I analyzed the input I’d been given, considered what alternatives might exist, and thought about what I wanted to achieve by coming to the decision. After a great deal of reflection, I came to the decision to accept the job. As the Wharton text points out “once the values and probabilities are known, an answer is relatively straightforward” (Hoch & Kunreuther, 2005, p. 504). 

            Reflecting back on the decision I made, I know I involved the right people in the process. It was a good decision and one where I am sure I did the right thing. I cannot think of anyone else I did not include in the process that might have assisted in making the decision. Lessons learned that would aid in future decisions are: 1. Including other perspectives gives us a greater chance to see things more clearly which helps make better decisions; 2. Collaborating with others fosters trust and builds better relationships; and 3. Every decision we make helps us make better decisions in the future. In his book on resolution, Stewart Levine (2009), he hopes to teach us about “patience, inquiry, learning, and expanding our perspective” (p. 11). I now have a greater understanding of the role collaboration plays in the decision making process. My perspective has certainly been expanded by the information we have been exposed to throughout the semester. 

References

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

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

A632.6.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A632.6.3.RB – The High Cost of Conflict

            While working as a paralegal, there was an instance where a business situation had a higher cost of conflict than I initially anticipated. The main experience I am alluding to occurred about three years ago. A co-worker of equal standing and I were assigned a joint project.  Instead of working together to meet the deadline, we each made our own assignments and objectives take priority.  We had different styles of going about things and already did not think the best of one another.  In the end, we were unable to put aside our differences.  The work never got done and our careers suffered, although briefly, as a result. 

            In retrospect (and to be completely honest, even at the time), I realize that our personal reservations should never have gotten in the way of the firm’s productivity.  If we could have put aside our differences and dedicated time each day that week towards the joint tasking, I am certain it would have been accomplished.  Unfortunately, we failed to adequately manage our personal conflict and differences. 

              It would be interesting to analyze this situation in the context of Stewart Levine's 10 Principles of New Thinking (2009).  The main principles I see applying in this context are those of numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8.  It is hard to admit, but we really did become "wasted resources."  We threw away the firm’s time and money that week by failing to work together when all that was asked of us was to create a partnership and get the job done.  Rather, we fostered conflict.  If we had become open with one another by discussing our differences and overcome them, then we might have been able to work through everything and foster long-term, sustainable collaboration.  Clearly, this did not occur.  We should have disclosed our information and feelings to work together for the greater good. 

            In retrospect, these considerations definitely would have made a difference.  Not only would we have managed to work with one another and get the job done, but we might also have fostered a healthy business relationship with synergistic energy.  The high cost of conflict on our reputation, output, and efficiency could have been dramatically reduced.  Overall, this exercise has taught me that overcoming conflict can lead to highly productive and mutually beneficial scenarios, especially within a context such as my own.  I hope to apply them better in the future. 

References

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

A634.1.5.RB_DellElceCamila

A634.1.5.RB – The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

            The train ethical dilemma does indeed puts your integrity and decision-making choices into question. Living in a world where doing the right or wrong thing can make a significant difference, makes it difficult to see the gray middle grounds on those decisions. When faced with difficult decision where none of the choices are attractive, I believe the best way to handle it is by using your critical perspective and then use your inner sense of the situation. What is critical thinking? Defined by Matthew Lipman, “Critical thinking is skillful, responsible thinking that is conductive to good judgment because it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Nosich, 2012, p. 2).

            After though rough consideration, when it comes to scenario one; if there was a train about hurtled down a track where five children were standing and with a switch I could choose whether to have the train hurtled over five or just one child. I would throw the switch to the one child standing on the train tracks while saving five other children’s lives. The reasoning behind this decision is to save as many kids as possible, the lesser the damage the better. It does not mean, that one child has no importance, but in the great skim of things, four more children get to go home and see their parents. Additionally, this would imply living with the remorse of not saving one child’s live instead of five.

            On the second scenario, if I was standing next to an elderly man and with the switch I had to choose whether to save all five children from the train or push the man, I would without a doubt push him in front of the train. The reason I would chose the elderly man is because as it is implied, he is a man of age. He probably has lived a good life and experienced all kinds of adventures. As if we compare it to the five children, they are still kids full of life. Overall, it is harder to say goodbye to a child than an elderly man, as it is expected for a man of age to die but not when it comes to children. Not to say that emotions are not involved, but I feel more attached to the children’s parents’ emotions and feelings more than mine. As described by Hugh LaFollette, “some people are oblivious to moral questions: they just blindly pursue their own interests, never caring how their actions affect others” (2007, p. 88).

            Lastly, the third scenario suggests that with a switch I could either save the five children standing on the train track or save my own child. Now, this is a tricky question since emotions are involved. This decision is no longer rational and therefore, my decision-making is impaired. Nevertheless, I would chose to save my own kid as harsh as that may sound. There really is no best moral choice when it comes to this scenario as you are talking about children dying. “When we start thinking systematically about practical ethical issues, we begin to theorize morally. Too often we see moral theorizing as a quaint intellectual practice of bearded, pipe-smoking, briefcase-toting philosophers” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 102). However, no definition will help into making this kind of decision, as I am almost certain most parent would chose to save their own kid at dispense of five other kids.

References

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

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.