Team Decision Making Process (Module Summary) MIIC 2013 Prof. Morten Hansen

Summary Points: Decision Making 1) Fragmented: different parties, different information, different views (Columbia case) 2) Need to create psychological safety (Columbia) 3) 3 ways of generating conflict: consensus, dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy (D-M exercise) 4) Design process up-front for cognitive conflict, reduced affective conflict, increased chance of buy-in (D-M exercise, Kennedy cases) 5) Manager needs to orchestrate D-M process up-front (Kennedy cases)

Columbia Shuttle Disaster Case: Decision making in complex organizations Decision Making is a Process, not an event or meeting Decision: What to do about foam strike? Deliberations over 8 days, not just one event Complex organizations, complex processes Multiple units Hierarchical levels Pressures Information and activity overload Different people hold different information Different people hold different views D-M takes place in a social and political context

Managers need to create psychological safety in decision making Psychological Safety: the shared belief that the team/organization is safe for interpersonal risk-taking What types of interpersonal risks are associated with behaviors such as asking for help, admitting an error, or expressing a different point of view? Risk of looking ignorant Risk of looking incompetent Risk of being seen as intrusive Risk of being seen as negative Psychological safety promotes candid discussion Source: Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School

How to create Psychological Safety Individual conduct of manager is key Be accessible (meet, open door policy, invite input, etc.) Acknowledge own fallibility (if leader does, then make others more open to admitting mistakes) Shape the context to make environment safe to speak up Remove effects of status differences and “expert status” in group, if possible (e.g., by inviting everyone to speak, teams not dominated by certain experts, neutral sites for meetings) Reduce punishment for failures Decouple as much as possible discussions aimed at learning from performance evaluation E.g., single mistakes not counting against you

Three ways of designing conflict into the decision making process Consensus: Debate one solution Strive for unanimity and harmony Devil’s advocacy: First sub-group develops a solution Second sub-group criticizes the developed solution First sub-groups modifies solution in response to criticism Dialectical inquiry: Second sub-group develops an alternative solution The two sub-groups come together and develop a joint solution

Decision making process design leads to two types of conflict Cognitive Conflict: Generally task oriented and focused on judgmental differences about how to best achieve common objectives Affective Conflict: Tends to be emotional and focused on personal incompatibilities or disputes Source: Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict”

D/I and D/A tend to create more conflict Consensus Dialectical inquiry Devil’s advocacy Cognitive conflict Low/moderate High Affective conflict Low High/moderate

Key is to increase cognitive and decrease affective conflicts Devil’s advocacy + Cognitive conflict + Debate alternatives, Deep analysis, New ideas + Better decisions + Stimulate conflict and debate + Affective Conflict Personal animosity, Less group harmony, Poor decision acceptance Poor implementation + + + Dialectical inquiry Key is to break this path

Key is to increase cognitive and decrease affective conflict Some techniques for increasing the “gap”: Establish and reinforce norms that make vigorous debates the rule rather than the exception Propose novel, unexpected questions that prompt debate without undermining any individual’s position Insist that debates be resolved by revisiting facts, assumptions, and pre-established decision criteria, not by power or the loudest voice Seek intermediate agreements about key elements of a problem along the way to a final decision Break up pre-established coalitions and assign tasks on other than traditional functional or divisional loyalties Choose words carefully to avoid inflammatory, offensive language

Managers need to orchestrate the decision making process Manager’s Key Role Approaches to Managing the Process Factors Creating The Context Quality of Problem Solving Processes Quality of Outcomes Structure Membership Setting Leadership Experience Style Situational Factors Level of urgency Time available Roles Assigned Conflict Mgmt. Norms Openness to data Underlying agenda Power balancing Size of Group Means of dialogue Multiple alternatives Testing of assumptions Clear criteria Dissent & debate Perceived fairness Quality of decision Implementation effectiveness Timeliness

Diversity in counsel, unity in command Cyrus the Great