Term
| Major Barrier to good decisons... |
|
Definition
| Is overly narrow views of a decisions, or NARROW FRAMES, which pretend that knowledge is complete. |
|
|
Term
| Principles for effectively dealing with narrow representatives |
|
Definition
| To follow a process that broadens the decision frame. |
|
|
Term
| A broad decisions frame takes 3 things into account: |
|
Definition
1. Multiple objectives - not just the most salient one at the moment
2. Multiple alternatives - not just the first option that lands on the table
3. Multiple outcomes that could arise in the near and long term - not just the expected state of the world |
|
|
Term
| Recent theoretical work on decision making has placed these tendencies in in a more general framework... |
|
Definition
| ...arguing that the mind is wired with many "system 1" processes that are intuitive, fast, and automatic, with more deliberate and conscious processes ("System 2") attempting to monitor and correct these intuitive processes. |
|
|
Term
| 1722, Ben Franklin's passage to Joseph Priestley - Two insights... |
|
Definition
1. It sketches a formal if simple decisions process that has been frequently celebrated as an early model of more sophisticated decision techniques. It lays out a rough version of what would not be called "cost-benefit analysis".
2. More subtle insight is his explanation for why he conducts his "prudential algebra" over "three or four days." In his words, decisions are difficult because "all the reasons pro and con are not present to mind at the same time; but sometimes one set present themselves, and at other times another, the first being out of sight." The initial representation of a decision is often incomplete. In Franklin's view, all the relevant motives and reasons are not immediately salient, but come into view over time.
- Decision makers get "stuck" in one way of thinking about a situation and cannot easily generate and entertain new thoughts. Yet, even as their thinking gets stuck, decision makers are confident that their understanding is complete and their resulting judgments are accurate. |
|
|
Term
| Narrow View of the Future #1 |
|
Definition
When people are asked to make predictions about future events, they typically have an overly narrow view of what could happen.
-One form of narrowness occurs when decisions makers accept a point estimate - a single "best guess" number - and act on that number. Point estimates fail to capture the range of outcomes that could result.
-A second manifestation of narrowness can occur even when forecasters try to give a range of plausible outcomes. The resulting picture of the future is too narrow. |
|
|
Term
| Narrow View of the Future #2 |
|
Definition
Although people make a good faith attempt to use evidence to form an accurate expectation about the future, they focus too much on evidence that is consistent with a single scenario (often an extension of the status quo) and fail to imagine the wider range of possible scenarios that could happen.
-This is potentially costly to the extent that a wider, more accurate range would dictate pursuing a different, better course of action.
-Moreover, anticipating the full range of possible future outcomes can lead decisions makers to develop a contingency plan that can best meet the opportunities and challenges of different circumstances. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
People often pursue a narrow list of objectives in their decisions.
-One problem is that individuals evaluate choice options without considering their objectives at all (effectively "shooting from the hip")
-Even when decision makers generate specific objectives, however, the list is typically incomplete. Often the most salient or easily measures objectives block consideration of other objectives. |
|
|
Term
| Narrow search for objectives compounded by organizational and social factors |
|
Definition
Differences in training, experience, and function lead individuals to focus on only a subset of the objectives that are relevant to a decision from an ORGANIZATIONAL perspective.
-Organizational mechanisms, such as cross-functional teams, or job rotations, are designed precisely to ensure that decisions are made with a broader set of objectives. |
|
|
Term
| Narrow search for objectives compounded by organizational and social factors |
|
Definition
Differences in training, experience, and function lead individuals to focus on only a subset of the objectives that are relevant to a decision from an ORGANIZATIONAL perspective.
-Organizational mechanisms, such as cross-functional teams, or job rotations, are designed precisely to ensure that decisions are made with a broader set of objectives. |
|
|
Term
| Narrow set of alternatives |
|
Definition
People often consider an overly narrow set of choice alternatives. The alternatives might be narrow in number or narrow in scope.
-One reason for a narrow consideration of choice options is due to organizational dynamics.
-More subtle form of narrowness arises from individual cognitive processes. Research has shown that once one approach to solving a problem is generated, it is hard to generate new approaches.
*By extension, organizational decisions that involve generating a range of options are likely to suffer from the same "functional fixedness" once initial alternatives are generated.
-Research has found that decision makers report being satisfied that they have generated a broad and complete set of choice alternatives even when they fail to generate many relevant options. |
|
|
Term
| Basic cause of narrow framing in individuals |
|
Definition
Is COGNITIVE: associative memory processes lead people to start with a set of assumptions and then recruit evidence in a way that is consistent with the initial view.
-In part, failure to search further is a product of minimizing effort; but the more subtle obstacle is that the info that comes to mind seems complete and inherent, reducing the feeling of uncertainty that would prompt further search. |
|
|
Term
| Individual factors reinforced by social and organizational processes |
|
Definition
Common training, common experiences, and frequent interaction all have the effect of leading to shared views on problems. Although shared views can be beneficial because they facilitate communication and coordination of efforts, they can be harmful when they perpetuate narrow perspectives on a decision problem.
-A like-minded group is a poor source for new objectives, alternatives, and future scenarios, but more confident in its ability - the consistency of perspective across colleagues leads each individual to feel validated and confident in his or her view of decisions. |
|
|
Term
| Reinforce narrow frames because they discourage independence and dissent. |
|
Definition
A group that starts a brainstorming session without first asking each member to generate his or her own views on a problem risks having a specific view emerge early in the discussion that then frames everyone's view of the problem.
-Finally, even when there are divergent, independent perspectives, they may not be expressed if the group environment focuses on harmony - on conformity to a boss's opinion - over debate.
In sum, although narrow representations may occur at the individual level for basic cognitive reasons, they are often compounded by the social environment. People surrounded by like-minded peers, who follow poor group processes, or who are located in dense networks will tend to share the same narrow frame. |
|
|
Term
| Formal Techniques for broadening decision frame |
|
Definition
1. Considering multiple attributes and alternatives.
2. Assessing and weighing future states of the world.
3. Using "all four cells" to make accurate predictions.
4. Barriers to adopting quantitative techniques |
|
|
Term
| Informal Techniques for broadening decision frame |
|
Definition
1. Informal techniques for broadening the search for information
2. Informal techniques for using a broader set of attributes and alternatives in decisions.
3. Informal techniques for broadening diversity of perspective |
|
|
Term
| Considering Multiple Attributes and Alternatives |
|
Definition
Choosing among alternatives is typically difficult because there is no alternative that is superior on all dimensions. Instead, one has to forego on alternative that may be superior on a less important dimension to gain superiority on more important dimensions.
-Multiple choice techniques prescribe that you think thru a wide range of objectives you care about and the attributes that would predict achieving those objectives. |
|
|
Term
| Raw structure for decision-making techniques |
|
Definition
The basic structure is to break a problem down into alternatives and attributes and think about the importance of the attributes. When there is a large set of data that allows one to connect the attributes of past alternatives to subsequent success and failure, one can statistically regress outcomes on attributes to see which attributes are important in predicting success.
-The method does assume that the predictive value of attributes is reasonably stable and that one is predicting to other cases "inside the range" of what has been observed in the past. |
|
|
Term
| When there is no past data... |
|
Definition
There are decision analytic techniques for putting weight on attributes. Some of these process are "top down" - one consciously weighs the importance of tradeoffs across attributes - and some are "bottom up" - one simply ranks a set of alternatives that differ across attributes and captures the implicit weights one is giving to each attribute (AKA "conjoint analysis").
-Useful to know if head and gut ("top down" and "bottom up" agree) - if they do not agree, it can help identify a missing objective or force one to reconsider weights on attributes. |
|
|
Term
| When is it desirable for a multi-attribute analysis to be done to form new future decision formulas? |
|
Definition
1. A good deal of research in psychology has shown that when decision makers make a series of choices intuitively - without an explicit formula - decision makers make less consistent and accurate choices.
-By looking at alternatives case by case, decision makers inconsistently apply weights across cases and over-react to fleeting bits of info about specific alternatives.
2. Basic issues of fairness can actually support the use of formulas over individual choice. A formula can be an organizational tool for ensuring neutrality and consistency in decision.
3. The multi-attribute choice process broadens the decision frame by making explicit the need to consider multiple objectives, multiple attributes that help you achieve the objectives and multiple alternatives.
-By paying attention to all attributes, good and bad, early in the decision process, steps can be taken to mitigate weaknesses.
-By calling attention to the good and bad early on, it can lead decision makers to be more creative - to acknowledge that there is no superior alternative at this point and to explore in new ways for an alternative that is strong on all relevant attributes. |
|
|
Term
| Assessing and weighing future states of the world. |
|
Definition
A second formal technique for broadening the frame is thinking through the range and likelihood of different uncontrollable events that could influence the outcome of a decision.
- First step in assessing risk is to generate the range of possible scenarios that could arise in the future that influence achieving your objectives.
- With such an understand, one can then assess both the likelihood of each scenario and how it would affect the outcomes attached to each alternative under consideration.
- Finally one can generate new, contingent ways of responding to each scenario. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Broadens the decision frame by forcing the decision maker to imagine a range of scenarios, think thru their likelihoods, and assess their impact on the value of different choice alternatives. It overcomes a basic habit of planning for one future state of the world. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Having assessed scenarios, likelihoods and outcomes, one can then formally calculate "expected values" that weight outcomes by their likelihoods. One can also assess whether an alternative could lead to a wide range of good and bad outcomes and decide whether one would prefer a safe alternative that has a smaller range of highs and lows. |
|
|
Term
| Using "all four cells" to make accurate predictions |
|
Definition
Do the right checks to see whether an attribute predicts an outcome.
*Until all four cells are examined, one cannot even tell if there is a relationship between the attribute and the outcome. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The business press and our day-to-day decisions often rely on causal observation that "sees" a relationship based on only two cells. In using attributes in a decision, one must broaden the decision frame by checking all four cells in a covariation table to see if there is a relationship, and then, if there is, asking what additional factors might be serving as causes of the relationship. |
|
|
Term
| Reflections of using "four cell" table - First Shortcoming |
|
Definition
| -First shortcoming, the study is looking at only two cells in a four cell table. Specifically, it is examining the presence or absence of pet ownership among CEOs. The remaining two cells of interest are the presence or absence of pet ownership among NON-CEOs. If most people have a dog or cat at some point in their childhood, then we have not learned much from the 94% figure among CEOs. |
|
|
Term
| Reflections of using "four cell" table - Second Shortcoming |
|
Definition
| -Second shortcoming, even if CEOs show a higher rate of childhood pet ownership, this may not be the causal factor in their success. Families that have other characteristics that lead to success in business - money, educational opportunities, job opportunities and social networks - may be more likely to own pets. |
|
|
Term
| Barriers to adopting quantitative techniques |
|
Definition
Highly quantitative versions of the techniques described above are, in theory, already present in many organizations.
-Have major components that focus on risk assessment, causal analysis and processes for weighing attributes and alternatives. |
|
|
Term
| Everyday organizational reaction to using formal, quantitative techniques is mixed. |
|
Definition
Employees are cynical when such techniques are proposed in new programs because they are often introduced by outsiders or from above.
-The mathematical nature of the techniques appeals to some employees, but requires extensive training for many employees.
-Once learned, the techniques are time consuming to use.
-These formal techniques face a classical problem - the benefits of adoption are not easily demonstrated... thus there is a tendency for the formal, quantitative aspects of these practices to wither in the process of adoption. |
|
|
Term
| Major benefits depend on - following the general process |
|
Definition
| The more important factor in broadening the frame is to strive for a complete representation of the decision problem. Breadth is accomplished by thinking about attributes, alternatives, tradeoffs and scenarios. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Informal decision techniques - fix narrow frames by being simple, specific, home-grown and social. |
|
|
Term
| Informal techniques for broadening the search for information |
|
Definition
Force decision makers to search for more info without directing decision makers to specific information.
1. "Consider an alternative": technique simply requires a person to ask "why might my favorite answer by wrong?"
2. The "Five Whys": a regular component of Total Quality Management (TQM) and Six Sigma; process is simply one of starting with a problem, asking why, and then following up each answer with an additional why. The goal is to go beyond a superficial, narrow understanding of a situation to a deeper understanding.
-Result of asking Five Whys will be more fundamental objectives that could be pursued thru a wider variety of attributes than initially considered. |
|
|
Term
| Informal techniques for using a broader set of attributes and alternatives in decisions. |
|
Definition
Overcomes narrow frames by requiring decision makers to use checklists for gathering info and evaluating alternatives.
-They are likely to provoke resistance from users at first, since they seem controlling. They will be acceptable if they are home-grown or inherited from experts. Moreover, checklists are only as good as the validity of the items on the checklist and run the risk of omitting important considerations. The bet one makes with a checklist is that individuals with narrow frames would omit even more of the import considerations. |
|
|
Term
| Informal techniques for broadening diversity of perspective. |
|
Definition
Takes advantage of the fact that combining multiple narrow frames can create a broad, complete understanding of a decision.
*If the independent perspectives of multiple people are pooled together, the resulting knowledge is broader and more complete than the view of any one person.*
-However, the benefit of drawing on multiple people is highly contingent on tapping a set of people who hold diverse perspectives initially and then following procedures that preserve it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A technique used in TQM - involved assembling a team to evaluate a current procedure and look for improvements. The team was deliberately assembled with "non-experts". The logic of using non-experts is that those wrapped up in a routine cannot step back to question the process; people with fresh eyes, however, can reason by analogy to a broader set of knowledge and experience.
-In general, decisions that involve diagnosing problems and generating new alternatives can benefit by having non-experts provide fresh eyes. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Main factors that make a crowd wise are diversity and independence.
-Unfortunately, classic brainstorming can undermine independence of thought to the extent that early suggestions can entrain everyone's subsequent ideas.
-Thus, the best group techniques preserve initial differences in perspective by having individuals think about a problem alone (often called "nominal group"), but then pool the information so that others can react to it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Individuals thinking about a problem alone, and then pooling the info so others can react.
- Are superior to individuals in estimating unknown, uncertain outcomes... when a large number of imperfect estimates are averaged together, extreme errors cancel out, and the resulting group average with be closer to the truth than the answer of the average individual.
*Groups can talk themselves into poor decisions that they then hold with high confidence because of the perceived widespread support of the conclusion. To prevent conformity pressures and groupthink, it is essential that groups encourage diversity of perspective, independence of thinking and a willingness to express dissent. |
|
|
Term
| Limitations to broadening the frame. |
|
Definition
1. Practical limits on broad frames
2. Blinking rather than thinking |
|
|
Term
| Practical limits on broad frames |
|
Definition
1. Elaborate techniques, such as multi-attribute choice processes, are time consuming and risk "analysis paralysis". Research has found that too much choice can lead decision makers to avoid making a choice at all. The diminishing marginal benefit of considering more attributes and alternatives needs to be balanced against the potential cost of overwhelming people with information.
2.Recommendations that involve soliciting objectives and alternatives from many different parties risk introducing conflict, politics and negotiation. However, even in a politically charged environment, an awareness of objectives and alternatives can lead to better decisions thru negotiations-specifically, good decisions can be made if each party sacrifices unimportant attributes to gain more desirable attributes.
-Broad participation in generating objectives, alternatives, and scenarios will tend to increase commitment to a final decision, especially if the process of collecting and weighing info is seen as procedurally fair.
3. More comprehensive processes may increase confidence and satisfaction with a decision, but, if the processes make obvious stark tradeoffs, they may dampen satisfaction with a final decision. |
|
|
Term
| Blinking rather than thinking |
|
Definition
Sometimes very quick decisions are highly accurate.
Three academic claims challenge "broaden the frame" principle. |
|
|
Term
| Claim 1: "Take the Best" - TTB strategy |
|
Definition
1. Many decisions can be made better and more quickly by focusing on a single attribute or predictor and then incorporating additional information only if that first piece is inconclusive (a strategy named "Take The Best-TTB"). If TTB were generally effective, it would directly undermine the prescription to use a broad frame. Many studies have shown that TTB is effective - specifically, it works well in situations where one attribute is much more important than other attributes, and it works well when the most important attribute is obvious.
-These demonstrations are selective. One of main difficulties is uncertainty around identifying most important attributes and how much weight to place on them. If there is error in identifying the most important attribute, TTB performs much less well than broad strategies that use multiple attributes.
*In short, using multiple attributes or multiple predictors is a better strategy when information is known with uncertainty. |
|
|
Term
| Claim 2: Quick and Automatic Decision making |
|
Definition
Many expert decisions are done quickly and automatically, without extensive weighing of options. *Experts process info differently than novices*
-Experts have a wide array of experience in their particular task that allows them to quickly recognize a situation and retrieve an effective course of action.
-Main question for organizational decision making is what conditions support the development of these skills? First, the skills of experts are DOMAIN SPECIFIC. Second, experts are able to develop skills because they face a very favorable environment for learning - an environment in which a person can experience a broad but recurring set of situations and see the immediate, unambiguous results of his or her actions.
-If situations were constantly novel, or feedback were ambiguous or delayed, it would be very difficult to learn how to react effectively.
-Not quite accurate to say that experts use narrow frames; it is more accurate to describe them as quickly taking in relevant attributes and automatically generating alternatives.... takes about 10 years to gain experience. |
|
|
Term
| Claim 3: "Unconscious" vs. "Conscious" decision-making |
|
Definition
| Proposal that "unconscious" decision making is superior to "conscious" decision making. |
|
|
