Team Decision Making Process (Module Summary) MIIC Fall 2010 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) 6) Design D-M for turbulence: design team goals and process; slack gives options; beware escalation of commitment (Mount Everest case)

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 0.28/0.35 Devil’s advocacy + Cognitive conflict + Debate alternatives, Deep analysis, New ideas + Better decisions + Stimulate conflict and debate 0.48 to 0.59 + Affective Conflict Personal animosity, Less group harmony, Poor decision acceptance Poor implementation + + + Dialectical inquiry -0.47 to -0.62 Key is to break this path Note: numbers are correlations from MIIC data Nov 2009

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

Designing team decision making process for turbulent environments (Mount Everest ex) Planning • Build in ‘cheap’ slack: What are your oxygen bottles? Composition • No primadonnas • Level 5 individuals Goal •Set a strong Group goal • Subordinate individual goals Critical decisions • What you do ahead of difficult times counts the most (before storms hit) • Decision making biases happen in best of teams Outcomes Process • Avoid escalation of Commitment • Avoid loss of agency • Psychological Safety Leadership style • Watch over-confidence • Be less authoritative & more consultative Turbulent Events Big, unpredictable, Fast, Hurt you

Example: David Breashears leading the IMAX team Planning • Scenarios • Slack: oxygen & 2 attempts Composition • Experts • No primadonnas Goals • Make the film • Each one on top Critical decisions • Turned around • Went back up • Sumiyo off the summit bid Outcomes Process • Time to bond • Each w/ responsibilities • Made the movie • Everyone but one on top • All safe Leadership style • Consultative • Demanding Turbulent Event Weather changes

Example: David Breashears leading the IMAX team 1. Set a very clear and strong group goal that is more important than individual goals • “Make the IMAX movie” 2. Assemble Level 5 teams (i.e., with individuals who emphasize the team mission more than their own interests) • Demonstrate with own level 5 behaviors 3. Build in slack (i.e., wiggle room) in your execution plans • Breashears planned for two summit attempts, Hall for one. • Idea is not to be cornered, but leave you with options • For example: 1 extra person on a team, always strong balance sheet, always insist on profitability (vs. extra sales to build share), 2 product launch attempts. 4. Always watch our for creeping biases in the team • Escalation of commitment. The team pursues a course of action in face of negative feedback, simply because they have already spent resources on that (sunk costs). That’s Doug Hansen on Mount Everest, and it cost him his life. • Loss of agency. You as a leader directs everything, so team members stop thinking for themselves. When crisis hits or unpredictable things happen, they do not act or speak up. Inform them of overall plan, ask them to think about the whole plan, invite feedback. • Hubris. As things go well, you as a leader become over-confident, taking risks and being less watchful than you ought to be. It happens to everyone! • Develop “Psychological Safety” in the team to combat this. I.e., make it safe for people to speak up and criticize you as the team leader.

Diversity in counsel, unity in command Cyrus the Great