1. Team Decision Making Process (Module Summary)
MIIC Fall 2010
Prof. Morten Hansen

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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”

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Diversity in counsel,
unity in command
Cyrus the Great