MSLD 632 Module 4-Deception in Negotiations

As a nerd who collects Japanese action figures, I negotiate with a lot of people both in-person and online. The negotiation process is a lot like playing a game. Despite the many obstacles, we will go as far as we can to get what we want. Deceptions in particular are something ones should really be careful of: as this could lead ones to make poor decision-making and outcomes. To avoid getting into such a situation, I consider the following:

Research
Just like a scientific report, ones can’t explain anything without information. If there’s time before the negotiation, it is important to gather as much information as possible to prepare pointing out and ask questions to the opponent(s). For my case, I often look up information such as the price range, manufacturer, as well as images of the product to avoid the chances of getting a counterfeit item- a common issue in figure collecting.

In cases where negotiations happen on the spot, asking direct questions to the opponent(s) could help ones gather more information. However, it is important to keep in mind that word-of-mouth may not always be the most reliable source, and it is important to take time and think thoroughly and identify any suspicious cues.

Identifying Verbal and Nonverbal Cues

Aside from general research, verbal and nonverbal cues are other ways to avoid deception (Hoch, 2001). Suspicious cues are more present when someone tries to deceive me with a counterfeit figure. When these people try to offer me these items, they often try too hard to sound like an expert. When they say something like, “here we have a genuine Square Enix Metal Gear Solid figurine from Japan” for example, they often sound like they rehearsed the statement and therefore sounds unnatural.

If anything sounds suspicious, I then test the opponent by throwing some detailed questions and pointing out areas than seem weak (based on previous research). For this case, I often like to talk about the paint job of the figurine and say something like, “it’s interesting since I thought the colors of his eye are supposed to be blue-grey and not light blue”. After I say something, it’s important to pay attention to both verbal and nonverbal expressions. Often times when I point out such detail, they flinch a little or start saying a bunch of “ums” or “well”. When they try to talk back, they often times give me awkward smiles and even stumble: an indication that he or she may have been trying to deceive me. However, when we’re asking questions or pointing things out, it is also important for us to approach with caution to avoid our opponents feeling uneasy.

Taking Things Slowly

Negotiations should never be done in a rush. They are much more complex than regular conversations since there are a lot of information to consider when making the final decision. If I ever had cases where I still feel unsure despite the information I’ve researched and gathered from the opponent, I ask them kindly if there’s an option to come back later. If yes, it’s important to take the time, layout, and add in more information. If you’re unable to step out once, it’s better off to stop the negotiating all together.

Record Keeping

Despite considering the previous steps, there still may be cases where deception wins. To lower or completely avoid damages after making the decision, it is important to back up your decision-making with documentation. If an online advertisement of the product was online for example, take screenshots of the valuable information (better if this was done before starting the negotiation). Jotting notes and having a written contract with the individual(s) can also serve as a backup. 

References

Hoch, S. & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

MSLD 632 Module 3 - Reflections on Decision Making

Decision-making can be very complex and overwhelming. Rather than examining a situation as a whole, Hoch (2001), suggests framing our thinking to simplify and narrow our focus for faster, more efficient decision-making (p.133). Despite the benefits, there are also some risks involved. Since we’re narrowing our focus, there’s a risk of frame blindness: where information that may be valuable has little to no awareness. Other risks include the illusion of completeness, over confidence, and frame conflict.

Decision-making is an important and daily task as an academic advisor. To make effective decisions, I believe that it’s a matter of organizing. The idea is a lot like a flowchart. For example, if a student needs help figuring out what classes to take for the upcoming term, we begin the framing process by looking at what classes are available. To narrow the focus more, I might ask additional questions such as what modality or what subject they might be interested in. The key for my decision making is to prepare a set of questions that flows smoothly and help pinpoint the solution. With strong organization, we’re at less risk of going off course.

As Hoch (2001) mentioned, framing puts us at risk of frame blindness: where we put potentially important “in the shadows” (p. 137). To particularly avoid the overconfidence and illusion of completeness traps, I usually have a habit of telling myself to not get comfortable and that there’s always something to do. As leaders, it is important to keep in mind that change is constant. An example is when I share my experiences about a class with my students. While my information may be useful for the most part, I always remind myself and the tell the student that the course contents may not be the same as when I took the same class a few years back. By placing ourselves in an alert state, we can avoid being too confident about our decision-making.

In addition to constantly looking around, it is also important to consider the framings of others when making decisions. Just like the general ideas of framing, our own thoughts and opinions go in one direction. This was a mistake I made during my early days into my current job. Through training, I was taught that communicating via phone calls were the most effective ways to reach out to students. However, for my campus, this was not: as many of them work full time, travel, and generally wouldn’t not want to be bothered. Since I ended up upsetting a few people, I then got in the habit of placing myself in other’s shoes to make more effective decision-making.
 
References:
Hoch, S. & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

MSLD 632 Module 3-Framing Complex Decisions

                In a past MSLD course, I’ve learned a lot about understanding and dealing with complexity in the workplace. Unlike the past, today’s businesses are complex to the point that there’s too much information for a single leader to handle. As a result, most organizations follow that of a polyarchy: where everyone has some sort of leadership role and interact with one another to get the most their information (Obolensky, 2014). Whether we’re dealing with a generally complex situation, multiple stakeholders or environmental-related decision-making, the key is gathering as much information as possible.

                Information doesn’t necessarily mean written documents or data, but it could also include information from other people. According to Obolensky (2014), different levels of an organization tend to have different kinds and amount of information. In his study, he finds that approximately 60% of the information required for decision-making is found on the bottom level of an organization versus 30% in the middle and 10 on the top level (p.37). As a result, he concludes that it’s important for ones to encourage communication (including external stakeholders) to make more effective decision-making (Obolensky, 2014).

In my organization, listening is perhaps the most commonly used tool in dealing with all three types of decision-making processes. As an advisor, most of the listening components occur during advisement with my students. Rather than making the decisions myself, I take my time to listen to ensure my decision-making is compatible with the student. For example, many of my students are full-time students and workers. Since many of them also travel for their jobs, it’s very important for me to understand and implement their schedule when recommending courses. In some instances, listening can also be a learning opportunity: where I can use the new information for future decision-making. However, it is important to keep in mind that word-of-mouth may not always be the most reliable source of information and should be supported with other sources of information.

To obtain information in general, I often rely on the help of an assortment of Decision Support Systems (DSS). As Hoch (2001) states, DSS can be used to minimize the human element in decision-making in addition to using it as a power tool or to complement or hide weaknesses (p.100). Since some of my decision-making explanations are confusing to students, I rely on the help of information available throughout university websites and programs. For example, if I’m recommending a student to take electives for the upcoming term, they often ask me what classes they could take. Rather than verbally listing the courses (especially if there are over 10 plus choices!), I show and explain the courses to them. This is critical since simply throwing information is often times confusing and overwhelming for students.

As Hoch mentioned, evaluating behaviors can be a handy tool for decision-making. Aside from student advisement, I occasionally pay attention to what’s happening outside my campus. For example, the Boeing Company is perhaps the most commonly observed external stakeholder. With more than 90 percent of our students being Boeing employees, any changes that occur within the company could have little to huge effects for my campus. As of now, the company is focusing on employees with business and management backgrounds. With that in mind, I usually study information about our business and management degrees. When the company announces a new plane model, the focus will likely shift to engineers to help build these planes. The positives gained from these observation is an enhanced understanding.

References:

Hoch, S. & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). UK: Gower Publishing.

MSLD 632 Module 2- Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

Having a large selection to choose from may appear interesting, but more doesn’t always mean better. On TED’s How to Make Choosing Easier, Sheena Iyengar argued that having more choices leads to a number of consequences: including lack of engagement, poorer quality choices, as well as lack of satisfaction of the choice (2011). Since these consequences can potentially harm an entire organization, Iyengar suggest four different techniques to prevent ones from offering too many choices:

The first technique Iyengar mentioned is to simply cut the number of options: particularly those that have little to no distinguishable differences. From a business standpoint, Iyengar mentioned that reducing choices can not only simplify and increase the quality of one’s choice, but it can help reduce costs and increase sales (2011).

Concretization is Iyengar’s second technique. To boost the quality of one’s choice, choices must not only have distinguishable differences from others, but they must also have an actual meaning to the decision-maker. For instance in Iyengar’s example with the grocery store, the store owner admits that they weren’t selling well despite having a choice of 75 different bottles of olive oil. This is likely because there’s an overwhelming number of bottles to examine as well as most of them being too similar to one another. Olive oil is olive oil.

A possible suggestion to resolve this issue is to use Iyengar’s third technique: categorization. Rather than laying out all the choices at once, sorting them can help decision-makers pinpoint the choices they’re interested in with ease and speed. For instance, the store owner might consider separating olive oils from cheaper, low quality brands to more expensive, gourmet quality ones. While identifying the products becomes easier, there’s also a meaning to decision-makers: low quality or high quality.

The final technique is the condition for complexity. If there are multiple choices involved, the best approach is to start from low to high choice. The idea is a lot like a flow chart: we have an easy starting point and gradually branch out to pinpoint the ultimate choice. As Iyengar mentioned, starting off with a choice of 50 different paint colors for example can immediately overwhelm decision-makers: ultimately leading them to make poorer quality choices and have lower satisfaction and interest in making further choices.

Many of my personal decision-making are made with a combination of Iyengar’s concretization and categorization techniques. A good example is when I make decisions on purchasing collectible action figures. If there’s a particular cartoon character I want, I go through a number of categories: including size, price range, as well as the kind of figurine (statue or poseable). When I come across something I like, I then ask myself several questions to determine why my choice stands out from all the other choices. In addition, I also consider how the choices are offered to me (if applicable). Despite an excellent price and quality of the figurine, I may not make the choice to purchase the figurine if the customer service or an overall image of the business were poor. When poor qualities are identified, ones start to feel uneasy and consider additional risks in making the choice.

After watching Iyengar’s TED talk, it made me think about my workplace’s recent decision-making. In as little as 5 years, the number of degrees we offer has nearly doubled and is starting to offer degrees outside the aviation focus (what my university mainly specializes in). While the goal is to increase sales and improve student diversity, it made me wonder if increasing the number of degrees will actually benefit the university. I’m starting to notice that some of the degrees are too similar and may be in conflict with Iyengar’s point on concretization (example: Management, Engineering Management, Project Management). As a university that includes “Aeronautical” in their name, many potential students often judge by the name: resulting them to lose interest for our university. While I do not have all the information, I often worry that running multiple degrees and not having enough students will result in a problem with cost: which can eventually hurt my organization. To prevent this from happening, perhaps merging similar degrees or removing “Aeronautical” from the name of our university may help the university and simplify decision-making to future prospective students.

References:

Iyengar, S. (2011). Sheena Yengar: How to Make Choosing Easier. TED. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

MSLD 623 Module 1- Multistage Decision-Making

                The opening example in chapter 3 reminded me a bit of how marketing makes eye-popping advertisements. We see it all the time: “GET FREE SHIPPING” or “GET YOUR FREE ITEM TODAY”, the list goes on. When looking at these, we often times think right off the back that that’s a great deal. Without thinking, many people often go straight to the deal, only to realize later that they can qualify for the promotion if they make a purchase of $40 or more. In chapter 3, Stephen Hoch mentioned that this is a common mistake for many managers, and reminded us of the importance of forward planning (2001).

                Rather than judging by the cover, Hoch suggests that leaders should examine a problem more by identifying the probabilities of a decision. This not only includes positive outcomes, but also the negative outcomes and penalties that could occur. For the example in chapter 3, we have one distributor we worked with that can reach 50 percent of all potential customers. The second choice is a new firm that reached 25 percent last year, but is expected to reach 75 percent with the investments. Right off the back, the new firm may be a better deal because it has a chance of reaching an additional 25 percent compared to the other firm. However, when considering the risks, the 75 percent is an expected amount, and therefore has a chance of failing. While there’s no positive answer, the first firm we made deals with in the past may be a better deal because they reach 50 percent.

                After reading through Hoch’s advice on optimal dynamic decision analysis, I was able to draw some similarities to my own decision-making process. Personally, I am naturally an “over-thinker” and constantly image what-ifs scenarios before making any final decisions. For example, when an unusual and somewhat urgent situation occurs with a student while my boss (campus director) is gone, I can make two choices: make a decision on-the-spot with the information I currently have, or tell the student to wait a day or two so I can double check with my boss and other co-workers. Often times, students want an immediate answer, and the first choice therefore may seem like a good choice. However, my knowledge and authority is limited and I worry that the situation could get if provide the wrong information. In addition, doing the job wrong can also put me at risk in getting in trouble. While there’s a chance for the student to be disappointed, the best choice may be to politely tell the student to wait to ensure accuracy.

                Since I had previous practices of some of Hoch’s advice, I personally believe that my decision-making process won’t change significantly. As previously mentioned, I am naturally someone who over-thinks and image the possibilities before making my final move. However, I really like the mathematical equation mentioned on page 41. While I’m likely not going to implement the equation to my decision-making, it reminded me of the classic “which is a better deal” trick questions in math class. For example, you could be paid $5 for every mile you travel or you can be paid $2 for every mile, but have an initial $10 bonus. Most people might say the one with the bonus might be better because it’s eye-popping, but once you reach a certain number of miles, the $5 per mile would be a better deal. In conclusion, the mathematical example provided reminded us of how things could be seen differently if examined further.

References:

Hoch, S. & Kunreuther, H. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.