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.

                

MSLD 633 Module 8- How To Better Enable Leadership

                 

As Obolensky stated a few times in his text, organizations are becoming complex to the point that top leaders cannot make all the decisions for the entire organization (2014). As a result, superior leaders need the help of others to simplify complexity and get the most of their jobs done. An online university: such as my organization is a perfect example.

Overall, my organization has a good leadership structure. As an online university, it is critical: particularly to employees running one of many campuses to have a strong set of self-leadership skills. Without sufficient skills, we will be too dependent to university headquarters: which can eventually hurt the entire organization. My level of the organization only consists of my boss and myself. Personally, we believe that constant communication can help establish leadership.

Aside from our daily side conversations (we’re almost like best of pals), we often have an array of discussions. This can include anywhere from going over new university procedures to talking about an unusual advisement in the office. The key here is learning from one another. As Obolensky stated, every level of an organization tends to think and do things differently (2014). For instance, bottom-leveled departments could have as much as 60% of the information needed for effective decision-making versus the 10 to 30% in top and middle levels (Obolensky, 2014). Since my boss and I are close, we are aware of the differences in what we do and speak. Considering this, we are open to discuss and listen to one another in hopes to gather enough information to help us do our own work.

While I was unable to get any interviews from those above us, the challenge in my organization is closing the gap between university headquarters and its surrounding campuses. Currently, the university is making a shift towards online classes to the point that they no longer need as much help from employees outside headquarters (who advises and runs on-campus courses). While it is convenient for them to centralize and cover most of the daily tasks, I believe they are making a backward approach to Obolensky’s importance of polyarchy systems. To better enable leadership and ways of doing at the university, everyone needs to engage in further communication and listening. As previously mentioned, organizations are expanding and becoming complex to the point that leaders cannot make all the decisions for the entire organization (Obolensky, 2014). Considering the previously mentioned 10 to 30% of information from top levels, leading with the missing 60% can cause a domino effect of problems. To avoid this, everyone should engage in communication and listening to not only learn about one another, but to make more effective decision-making.

References:

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

MSLD 633 Module 7- Leader Follower Relationship

Numerous times throughout my life, I've either experienced, seen, or heard stories about strict and poor leadership and management in the workplace. Especially when many of my friends started working in part-time positions during high school, I often wondered why such style of leadership is considered good for their employees. The stories had many similarities and outcomes: the leader progressively pushes or disregard employee's breaks to focus on customer demand. The leader demands their employees to come to work despite pre-planning their day(s) off. The list goes on. All of these examples often lead to stress, poor motivation, and lack of work satisfaction.

As someone who also had a few similar experiences in the past, I knew that this wasn't the right way to do business. My overall thoughts on leadership remains constant, and it wasn't much of a surprise to see the test results on the tenth chapter of Obolensky's textbook. Of the four strategies, I mostly aligned with Obolensky's strategy 2. Strategy 2, as Obolensky states is where both the focus on goal and people are high. While I understand the reasons behind some of the stories I've heard, it is important to keep in mind that people also makes up the organization. Since teamwork is necessary to run an organization, it is important for leaders to keep a balance between task and relationships (Whetten and Cameron, 2016).

Personally, I believe that the most common mistake organizations make is focusing too much on company tasks. This whole idea of leadership reminds me of an interesting TED talk by Itay Talgam. Talgam's Lead like the great conductors provided some great examples by showing orchestra performances from various conductors. At one point, Talgam shared a clip of Riccardo Muti’s performance, which he used as a metaphor of an over-commanding, task-focused leader. He adds on saying that being too directive and task-driven tends to create social issues, in addition to blocking opportunities for personal development (Talgam, 2009). In another example, Talgam shows a conductor hardly moving his conductor's baton. He uses this example to explain how giving too much authority to followers can also spark conflict. For this case, followers may be at the risk getting "lost" or not putting enough work effort.

Unlike the past, organizations are becoming more complex to the point that it's too much for one or several leaders to handle. As Obolensky states, leaders are starting to depend on the help of others to convert complexity into simplicity (2014). In addition, Whetten and Cameron states that leaders should not only concentrate on getting the job done: as people's physical and mental state has an effect on the organization's outcomes (2016). To avoid stress, lack of motivation, etc. that can potentially hurt the organization, it is important for leaders to constantly place themselves in "other's shoes" and communicate with employees to make effective decision-making.


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

Talgam, I. (2009). Itay Talgam: Lead like the great conductors [Video File]. TED. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/itay_talgam_lead_like_the_great_conductors


Whetten, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing management skills, 9th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

MSLD 633 Module 7- How Do Coaches Help?

To be an executive coach, it is necessary to know that clients are the first and best experts capable of solving their own problems and achieving their own ambitions; that is precisely the main reason why clients are motivated to call on a coach. When clients bring important issues to a coach, often they already made a complete inventory of their personal or professional issues and identified all possible (known) options. Clients have already tried working out their issues alone, and have not succeeded.

As the statement above mentioned, everyone is an expert of themselves. Despite the knowledge and ability in making the best decisions, it is important to keep in mind that self-decisions often times follow a one-side approach. According to Nosich (2012), effective decision-making is established with sufficient and relevant information. Information not only includes general research and data, but also includes different point-of-views (Nosich, 2012). This is where coaching comes to play: as it provides confidence, clarity, as well as additional information to enhance ones’ knowledge. Coaching is what I primarily do for my current position as an academic advisor. While my students are overall independent, it is important to keep in mind that obstacles may come across throughout their degree program. Whether it’s personal or academic-related, our goal is to provide both informational and emotional support to overcome these obstacles.

Academic assistance is the primary form of coaching at my campus, and this includes anywhere from providing clarifications to making recommendations. Perhaps the most common form of coaching is making course recommendations. When students visit or contacts me for assistance, they almost always have some kind of plan developed. While I respect their preferences, my goal is to provide information that they might consider. For example, I usually suggest some elective courses that I or another student found helpful. Unlike regular information (database, policies, etc.), word-of-mouth not only informs the student, but they can see information from a similar perspective. By viewing a situation from "others' shoes", they may be able to obtain additional information they initially were not aware about that may help them make more effective decision-making. 

While clarifying and providing additional information is important in coaching, I also believe that emotional support can be just as important. According to Whetten and Cameron (2016), there is a tie between emotions and productivity. It is not uncommon to come across students who are stressed, worried, and struggling with their degree progress. When a student is worried about a particular class for example, I try to share success stories. For example, I had a student last year that became worried about retaking a physics class he failed the previous term. Rather than simply giving him a "good luck", I told him a story of how it is actually common for students to retake the course and that even I had to retake the class myself. I told him that since he already has some previous background knowledge, re-taking the class should be much easier. Often times, students regain some confidence and when success does happen, the relationship between the student and I usually strengthen. 

References:

Nosich, G.D. (2012). Learning To Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum. Boston: Pearson Education.

Whetten, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing management skills, 9th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

MSLD 633 Module 6- Circle of Leadership

Today, my university is overall successful and continues to make a positive growth on delivering far-distance education to students across the globe. Despite the overall success, the challenge the university currently face is making close examination and communication between all 100 plus physical campuses. Since it is overwhelming to memorize and consider all physical campuses', I believe the university takes the more convenient approach by thinking that all physical locations are exactly the same. As a result, my university strongly follows the traditional top-down style of leadership.

Whether we're examining Obolensky's Circle for Leaders from the top-down or bottom-up perspectives, the circle often times become rigid when employees on the lower level (outside headquarters) becomes involved. One of the most common topic and problem my university face is the low enrollments for on-campus courses. From the top-down style, the circle likely starts from the statistics the university received. Noticing the low numbers, they then send all campuses effected an email notifying us about the low enrollments in addition to encouraging us to enroll more students. From this point, the circle almost always becomes rigid. When employees notice something is not working or have any information that can be beneficial to a company, it is encouraged for top leaders to hear out to make effective decision-making ("Feedback is Critical to Improving Performance", n.d.). Whenever low-level employees like myself provide feedback, it is usually read by someone but ends without taking any form of action.

The bottom-up style of leadership goes exactly the same way as the circle became rigid in the top-down style of leadership. Whether it's a problem or a suggestion that we may find helpful for the entire university, we either get a very broad, short response or the email becomes lost. In either case, there is almost always no further action taken after mentioning something to those at the top of the organization. While I understand the difficulties as top department receives hundreds of emails from all other campuses daily, being ignored or receiving very short responses often makes me think that I have no meaning or ownership of the organization. This then results in lower job satisfaction, that may lead to a domino effect of problems for the organization (Whetten & Cameron, 2016).  

Personally, I believe there's a large gap between top leaders and bottom employees in my organization. Obolensky (2014) states that if ones are working "blindly" within the organization, it can eventually lead to chaos. To avoid this, I believe that the organization should implement some "regional departments" to bring the gaps closer together. Rather than having the top leaders look at each individual campus, they can have employees work in-between to provide "summaries" of their region. For instance, the United States may have an employee or two focusing on all campuses on the Pacific Northwest. While this help ease top employees, employees in this department can likely obtain more information that top organizations had no time to examine. By summarizing all campuses, it reduces the complexity and establishes clarity for top employees. By understanding the situation better, they can then make more effective decision making for the entire university.

References:

"Feedback is Critical to Improving Performance". (n.d.). Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performance-management/performance-management-cycle/monitoring/feedback-is-critical-to-improving-performance/


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

Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing management skills. Boston: Pearson Education.

MSLD 633 Module 5- Reflections of Chaos

Personally, I believe that Obolensky’s demonstration of the Chaos Game represented the idea of how self-leadership or lower levels of the organization are likely to yield more efficient results than top level employees and directive leadership. Unlike the past, organizations are much larger and more complex: consisting of many departments that work together to reach a common goal. With the many things that occur within the organization, it has become excruciatingly difficult for top leaders to fully run the organization and understand what's happening around them. To gather as much information as possible, Obolensky suggest organizations to implement autonomy and the bottom-up style of leadership: as those towards the bottom of the organizations are often times more informed than those on top (2014). 
The idea of the Chaos theory is a lot like systems of thinking. Rather than looking at the whole picture, systems of thinking examines the finer details that occur within the organization. The purpose is to gather as much information (from different angles) possible to gain a better understanding of the full system. Recalling the difficultly of top leaders knowing all this information, Obolensky suggest them to depend on the help of those on the lower end of the organization. Statistics-wise, Obolensky (2014) states that lower-leveled  employees tend to know as much as 60% of the information within the organization versus the 10 to 30 percent of those on top. As a result, when top leaders are unsure about a situation, they are encouraged to reach out to those at the bottom to gain as much information possible.
My university is one of few examples that illustrates the general idea of the Chaos Game. One of the overall university's goal is to reach out to potential students. From the top of the organization, the idea of which students we're targeting is likely very broad. Since there are over 100 plus campuses worldwide, top leaders depend on us advisors to reach out to potential students. As we go down the workplace hierarchy, university staff becomes more aware of the surroundings:  leading to more specific target groups. In my campus for example, we are located across the street from the Boeing Company. As a university mainly specializing in aviation and aerospace fields, they will make a great target. As a result, we periodically set up a small booth inside the Boeing Company's cafeteria and attend any events where they may be sponsoring.

References:

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