adm 612 - leadership lecture 20 – leadership and decision making, part ii

ADM 612 - LeadershipADM 612 - Leadership

Lecture 20 – Leadership and Decision Making, Part II

Decision Process –

First Stages

Decision Process –

First Stages

Decision process –

Last Stages

Decision process –

Last Stages

Decision Process: Minor or Unimportant Problem


• Major stages.– Antecedent conditions.

• Challenge: threat or opportunity.• Expert prediction about potential losses from business

as usual.

– Mediating processes.• The problem is perceived as unimportant or routine.


• Challenge: threat or opportunity.• Expert prediction about potential losses from business

as usual.

– Mediating processes.• The problem is perceived as unimportant or routine.



• Major Stages.– Decision process.

• Reliance on SOPs or cognitive decision rules.– Consequences.

• If decision is unimportant: Efficient use of resources.• If decision is really important: High danger of major

losses from failure to anticipate.

• Major Stages.– Decision process.


• If decision is unimportant: Efficient use of resources.• If decision is really important: High danger of major

losses from failure to anticipate.

Problem Important: Cognitive Limitations Dominant



• Challenge: threat or opportunity.• Expert prediction about potential losses from business as usual.• Organizational reports about difficulties of solving problem or lack of

time or resources.

– Mediating processes.• Problem is important.• Perception that cognitive limitations make information search futile.


• Challenge: threat or opportunity.• Expert prediction about potential losses from business as usual.• Organizational reports about difficulties of solving problem or lack of

time or resources.

– Mediating processes.• Problem is important.• Perception that cognitive limitations make information search futile.



• Major stages.– Decision process.


• If decision is unimportant: Low risk of loss from bad decision.

• If decision is really important: High danger of major losses from failure to anticipate.



• If decision is unimportant: Low risk of loss from bad decision.


Problem Important: Affiliative Constraints Dominant



• Challenge: threat or opportunity.• Expert prediction about potential losses from business as

usual.• Official or informal messages about social pressures in

organization.– Mediating processes.

• Problem is important.• Conformity pressures or affiliative constraints are dominant..



usual.• Official or informal messages about social pressures in

organization.– Mediating processes.

• Problem is important.• Conformity pressures or affiliative constraints are dominant..



• Major stages.– Decision processes.

• Reliance on simple affiliative decision rules.– Consequences.

• If decision is unimportant: Low risk of losses from bad decisions.


• Major stages.– Decision processes.

• Reliance on simple affiliative decision rules.– Consequences.

• If decision is unimportant: Low risk of losses from bad decisions.


Problem Important: Egocentric Constraints Dominant




usual.• Provocative information about the challenge that elicits strong

emotional response.– Mediating processes.

• Problem is important.• Personal motive must be given priority.



usual.• Provocative information about the challenge that elicits strong

emotional response.– Mediating processes.

• Problem is important.• Personal motive must be given priority.




• Reliance on simple self-serving or emotive rules.– Consequences.

• If decision is unimportant: low risk of losses from bad decisions.



• Reliance on simple self-serving or emotive rules.– Consequences.

• If decision is unimportant: low risk of losses from bad decisions.


Problem Important: No Constraints Dominant




usual.• No overriding constraints are dominant (cognitive, affiliative,

egocentric).

– Mediating processes.• The problem is perceived as important.



usual.• No overriding constraints are dominant (cognitive, affiliative,

egocentric).

– Mediating processes.• The problem is perceived as important.




• Vigilant problem solving.– Consequences.

• If decision is unimportant: Inefficient management of minor threat or opportunity.

• If decision is really important: Danger of major losses low because of sound decision procedures.


• Vigilant problem solving.– Consequences.

• If decision is unimportant: Inefficient management of minor threat or opportunity.

• If decision is really important: Danger of major losses low because of sound decision procedures.

Mixed Model of ConstraintsMixed Model of Constraints

Values and Limitations of the Constraints Model

Values and Limitations of the Constraints Model

• What can and cannot be predicted.– Can diagnose frequency and severity of symptoms

of defective policymaking.– If evidence exists for assessing the presence and

absence of the antecedent conditions, predictions can be made about what type of problem solving approach is to be used.

– Cannot be used to predict alternatives chosen.

• What can and cannot be predicted.– Can diagnose frequency and severity of symptoms

of defective policymaking.– If evidence exists for assessing the presence and

absence of the antecedent conditions, predictions can be made about what type of problem solving approach is to be used.

– Cannot be used to predict alternatives chosen.

Shortcomings of Vigilant Problem Solving


• The solutions arrived at by vigilant problem solving are certainly fallible.

• Vigilant problem solving takes up much more time and is much more costly in terms of organizational resources than a simplistic approach.

• The solutions arrived at by vigilant problem solving are certainly fallible.

• Vigilant problem solving takes up much more time and is much more costly in terms of organizational resources than a simplistic approach.



• Another shortcoming of vigilant problem solving is that it cannot be counted upon to pinpoint the crucial policy problems that require solutions.

• There is no acceptable procedure for resolving conflicts in goals among contending powerholders.

• Another shortcoming of vigilant problem solving is that it cannot be counted upon to pinpoint the crucial policy problems that require solutions.

• There is no acceptable procedure for resolving conflicts in goals among contending powerholders.

Interactive Policy-makingInteractive Policy-making

• Members of a faction are more likely to be successful in a power struggle if they rely on vigilant problem-solving.

• Members of a faction are more likely to be successful in a power struggle if they rely on vigilant problem-solving.

Interactive Policy-makingInteractive Policy-making

• The constraints model cannot be applied if the innovators of a policy that “bubbles up” remain anonymous and the policy becomes operative without any identifiable executives having approved it.

• An unplanned or inadvertently created policy.

• The constraints model cannot be applied if the innovators of a policy that “bubbles up” remain anonymous and the policy becomes operative without any identifiable executives having approved it.

• An unplanned or inadvertently created policy.

Five Factors of PersonalityFive Factors of Personality

• Conscientiousness.

• Openness.

• Neuroticism.

• Conscientiousness.

• Openness.

• Neuroticism.

Five Factors of PersonalityFive Factors of Personality

• Agreeableness.

• Extraversion.

• The first three have most impact on decisions.

• Agreeableness.

• Extraversion.

• The first three have most impact on decisions.

Four Pathways to Policy Decisions of Poor Quality – 1


Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision – Underestimating Importance.


• Antecedent conditions.– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Expert prediction of losses from business as usual or changes.

• Personality deficiencies.– Lack of conscientiousness.– Lack of openness.– Cool, calm, detached coping style.– Chronic optimism concerning stability and low vulnerability of

organization.

• Antecedent conditions.– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Expert prediction of losses from business as usual or changes.

• Personality deficiencies.– Lack of conscientiousness.– Lack of openness.– Cool, calm, detached coping style.– Chronic optimism concerning stability and low vulnerability of

organization.



• Evaluation.– Problem is perceived as unimportant when it is

important.

• Decision-making strategy.– Reliance on SOPs and simple cognitive rules.

• Consequence.– High probability of avoidable losses.

• Evaluation.– Problem is perceived as unimportant when it is

important.



Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision – Overreacting to Cognitive

Constraints.


Constraints.• Antecedent conditions.

– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Organizational reports about problem solving or lack of

time and resources..

• Personality deficiencies.– Chronic low self-confidence.– Chronic pessimism about organization’s capacity to

provide essential resources for problem solving.

• Antecedent conditions.– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Organizational reports about problem solving or lack of

time and resources..

• Personality deficiencies.– Chronic low self-confidence.– Chronic pessimism about organization’s capacity to

provide essential resources for problem solving.


Constraints.


Constraints.• Evaluation.

– Problem is perceived as important.– But, cognitive constraints are more important



• Evaluation.– Problem is perceived as important.– But, cognitive constraints are more important



Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision – Overreacting to Affiliative

Constraints.



– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Official or informal information about social pressures,

acceptance of policy, retaliation, or loss of social support.• Personality deficiencies.

– Strong need for social approval.– Strong need for power and status.– Chronic paranoia about ruthlessness of others in organization.– High dependence on cohesive group.

• Antecedent conditions.– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Official or informal information about social pressures,

acceptance of policy, retaliation, or loss of social support.• Personality deficiencies.

– Strong need for social approval.– Strong need for power and status.– Chronic paranoia about ruthlessness of others in organization.– High dependence on cohesive group.


Constraints.



– Problem is perceived as important.– But, affiliative constraints are more important.

• Decision-making strategy.– Reliance on simple affiliative rules.


• Evaluation.– Problem is perceived as important.– But, affiliative constraints are more important.

• Decision-making strategy.– Reliance on simple affiliative rules.


Pathways to Poor Quality of Decision – Overreacting to Egocentric

Constraints.



– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Provocative information about challenge that elicits emotional response.

• Personality deficiencies.– Lack of conscientiousness.– Negativism and hostility toward organization.\– Low stress tolerance.– Lack of perceived control.– Ambivalence toward organization.– Habitual externalized anger-coping style.– Chronic hostility toward opponents.

• Antecedent conditions.– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Provocative information about challenge that elicits emotional response.

• Personality deficiencies.– Lack of conscientiousness.– Negativism and hostility toward organization.\– Low stress tolerance.– Lack of perceived control.– Ambivalence toward organization.– Habitual externalized anger-coping style.– Chronic hostility toward opponents.


Constraints.



– Problem is perceived as important.– But, egocentric constraints are more important.

• Decision-making strategy.– Reliance on simple egocentric decision rules.


• Evaluation.– Problem is perceived as important.– But, egocentric constraints are more important.

• Decision-making strategy.– Reliance on simple egocentric decision rules.


Pathway to Policy Decisions of Good Quality – 3

Pathway to Policy Decisions of Good Quality – 3

Pathways to Good Quality DecisionPathways to Good Quality Decision

• Antecedent conditions.– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Supplementary information of all kinds.

• Personality deficiencies.– None that affect response to

supplementary information.

• Antecedent conditions.– Challenge: threat or opportunity.– Supplementary information of all kinds.

• Personality deficiencies.– None that affect response to

supplementary information.

Pathways to Good Quality of Decision.

Pathways to Good Quality of Decision.

• Evaluation.– Problem is perceived as important.– No overriding constraints.

• Decision-making strategy.– Vigilant problem solving.– Adequate completion of all key steps.

• Consequence.– Low probability of avoidable losses.

• Evaluation.– Problem is perceived as important.– No overriding constraints.

• Decision-making strategy.– Vigilant problem solving.– Adequate completion of all key steps.

• Consequence.– Low probability of avoidable losses.

Who Will Be Good Policy Makers and Who Will Not?


• Who Goofs Off?– Chronic lack of conscientiousness will lead executives to be

relatively inattentive to cues that function as initial warnings to others.

– Chronic lack of openness will lead executives to apply existing organizational routines to practically all warnings.

– Calm, cool, detached coping style: executives going calmly about their business in the face of danger while others around them are upset.

– Chronic optimism leads executives to belittle the implications of all sorts of warnings because they expect the organization to have very low vulnerability to whatever dangers may materialize.

• Who Goofs Off?– Chronic lack of conscientiousness will lead executives to be

relatively inattentive to cues that function as initial warnings to others.

– Chronic lack of openness will lead executives to apply existing organizational routines to practically all warnings.

– Calm, cool, detached coping style: executives going calmly about their business in the face of danger while others around them are upset.

– Chronic optimism leads executives to belittle the implications of all sorts of warnings because they expect the organization to have very low vulnerability to whatever dangers may materialize.



• Who Can’t Hack It?– Low self-confidence will lead executives to be

highly responsive to information that calls attention to the difficulties and complications of any policy problem, with the result that they would feel unable to “hack it.”

– Chronic pessimism will dispose executives to accept communications that call attention to lack of expertise or lack of other resources.

• Who Can’t Hack It?– Low self-confidence will lead executives to be

highly responsive to information that calls attention to the difficulties and complications of any policy problem, with the result that they would feel unable to “hack it.”

– Chronic pessimism will dispose executives to accept communications that call attention to lack of expertise or lack of other resources.



• Who Can’t Say No?– Chronically strong need for social approval:

Executives will be highly responsive to all forms of social pressure.

– Strong need for status and power: More responsive than others to informational inputs that convey threats of retaliation from others for failing to support their preferred policies.

• Who Can’t Say No?– Chronically strong need for social approval:

Executives will be highly responsive to all forms of social pressure.

– Strong need for status and power: More responsive than others to informational inputs that convey threats of retaliation from others for failing to support their preferred policies.



• Who Can’t Say No?– Chronic apprehensiveness about the

ruthlessness of others: A relatively low threshold for informational inputs that convey threats of loss of compensation, power, or status for nonconformity.

– High dependency upon a cohesive group of fellow executives for social support: Groupthink.

• Who Can’t Say No?– Chronic apprehensiveness about the

ruthlessness of others: A relatively low threshold for informational inputs that convey threats of loss of compensation, power, or status for nonconformity.

– High dependency upon a cohesive group of fellow executives for social support: Groupthink.



• Who is self-serving?– Chronic lack of conscientiousness: Tend to

ignore warnings about dangers to organizations (Hyp. 1), low threshold for responsiveness to communications that arouse self-serving motives.

– Persistent negativism or hostility toward the organization: Responsive to informational inputs that arouse strong personal motives.

• Who is self-serving?– Chronic lack of conscientiousness: Tend to

ignore warnings about dangers to organizations (Hyp. 1), low threshold for responsiveness to communications that arouse self-serving motives.

– Persistent negativism or hostility toward the organization: Responsive to informational inputs that arouse strong personal motives.



• Who gets discombobulated?– Low stress tolerance: Adopt a coping strategy of

either defensive avoidance or hypervigilance.– Lack of perceived control over outcomes: Will

become hypervigilant when confronted with challenging events that require major changes.

• Who gets discombobulated?– Low stress tolerance: Adopt a coping strategy of

either defensive avoidance or hypervigilance.– Lack of perceived control over outcomes: Will

become hypervigilant when confronted with challenging events that require major changes.



• Who gets discombobulated?– Persistent ambivalence toward the organization: makes

executive sensitive to remote dangers and perceived adversities leading to either defensive avoidance or hypervigilance.

– Habitual externalized anger-coping style: sensitive to provocations that curtail vigilant problem-solving and move the executive to retaliation.

– Persistent hostility toward major opponents: Retaliate.

• Who gets discombobulated?– Persistent ambivalence toward the organization: makes

executive sensitive to remote dangers and perceived adversities leading to either defensive avoidance or hypervigilance.

– Habitual externalized anger-coping style: sensitive to provocations that curtail vigilant problem-solving and move the executive to retaliation.

– Persistent hostility toward major opponents: Retaliate.

Effective Leadership PracticesEffective Leadership Practices

• Preventing inadvertently goofing off.– When the discussion of an ambiguous threat

reveals a lack of consensus about importance, promote vigilant problem-solving.

– Even if a consensus is reached that the problem is unimportant, encourage low confidence in the decision and promote vigilance.

• Preventing inadvertently goofing off.– When the discussion of an ambiguous threat

reveals a lack of consensus about importance, promote vigilant problem-solving.

– Even if a consensus is reached that the problem is unimportant, encourage low confidence in the decision and promote vigilance.


• Preventing inadvertently goofing off.– If the threat is considered important, but

the problem it poses is not because an obvious solution is available, encourage constructive doubt about the solution to make sure all bases are covered.

• Preventing inadvertently goofing off.– If the threat is considered important, but

the problem it poses is not because an obvious solution is available, encourage constructive doubt about the solution to make sure all bases are covered.


• Helping a policymaking group hack it.– When an impending threat appears to impose

prohibitive costs for the organization, effective leadership counteracts the perceptions of insurmountable obstacles.

– Whenever decision-makers fail to make progress on a complex threat, break the problem into sub-problems.

• Helping a policymaking group hack it.– When an impending threat appears to impose

prohibitive costs for the organization, effective leadership counteracts the perceptions of insurmountable obstacles.

– Whenever decision-makers fail to make progress on a complex threat, break the problem into sub-problems.


• Enable members of a policymaking group to say no to conformity pressures.

– Whenever members of the group asset that it will be impossible to get acceptance for some important options, take steps to overcome the organizational constraint.

– Whenever the members of a group shown signs of relying on a simple decision rule to conform to avoid punishment, take steps to counteract the strong social pressures.

– Take steps to counteract the tendency of subordinates to withhold or distort bad news out of concern for punishment.


– Whenever members of the group asset that it will be impossible to get acceptance for some important options, take steps to overcome the organizational constraint.

– Whenever the members of a group shown signs of relying on a simple decision rule to conform to avoid punishment, take steps to counteract the strong social pressures.

– Take steps to counteract the tendency of subordinates to withhold or distort bad news out of concern for punishment.



– Whenever there are indications that some members are opposed to leader’s preference, avoid rigging the meeting.

– Whenever a group is functioning with a high degree of esprit de corps or compatibility, take steps to avoid group think.


– Whenever there are indications that some members are opposed to leader’s preference, avoid rigging the meeting.

– Whenever a group is functioning with a high degree of esprit de corps or compatibility, take steps to avoid group think.


• Curbing self-serving motives.– Whenever incentives are present that might

tempt members to pursue self-serving motives, openly note the temptation and reemphasize ethical norms.

– Whenever there are indications over a series of meetings that some members are being influenced by self-serving motives, take steps to counteract.

• Curbing self-serving motives.– Whenever incentives are present that might

tempt members to pursue self-serving motives, openly note the temptation and reemphasize ethical norms.

– Whenever there are indications over a series of meetings that some members are being influenced by self-serving motives, take steps to counteract.


• Curbing self-serving motives.– When the members of a group are moving

toward a consensus on an option that will give priority to a self-serving motive, defer a final solution and introduce counteracting incentives by making their accountability important to other powerholders.

• Curbing self-serving motives.– When the members of a group are moving

toward a consensus on an option that will give priority to a self-serving motive, defer a final solution and introduce counteracting incentives by making their accountability important to other powerholders.


• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.– Arrange for all members of the group to be given stress

inoculation training via crisis simulation exercises.– During a severe crisis, when members are undergoing

stress, raise questions, provide informative briefings, and make statements to alleviate acute feelings of apprehensiveness.

• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.– Arrange for all members of the group to be given stress

inoculation training via crisis simulation exercises.– During a severe crisis, when members are undergoing

stress, raise questions, provide informative briefings, and make statements to alleviate acute feelings of apprehensiveness.


• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.

– Whenever the danger of severe losses appears to be so imminent that some members believe that the time is too short to allow time to work out a good solution, take steps to counteract severe time pressures.

• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.

– Whenever the danger of severe losses appears to be so imminent that some members believe that the time is too short to allow time to work out a good solution, take steps to counteract severe time pressures.


• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.– During any long drawn-out crisis, whenever members of

the group are undergoing prolonged stress, provide information and comments that are likely to provide a realistic basis for hope.

– On those occasions when some group members are temporarily displaying anger or other emotions, intervene to counteract the adverse influence of the member’s strong emotional needs.

• Minimizing emotional discombobulation.– During any long drawn-out crisis, whenever members of

the group are undergoing prolonged stress, provide information and comments that are likely to provide a realistic basis for hope.

– On those occasions when some group members are temporarily displaying anger or other emotions, intervene to counteract the adverse influence of the member’s strong emotional needs.


• Deterring premature commitment.– Whenever a policymaking group appears to have reached

consensus on the best possible course of action, make a rapid, rough-and-ready diagnosis of residual symptoms of defective decision making and then take steps to eliminate them.

– Whenever the leader surmises that the group is not functioning at its highest potential level despite corrective efforts, make a careful diagnosis of the constraints that are sources of the resistance and take steps to counteract their influence.

• Deterring premature commitment.– Whenever a policymaking group appears to have reached

consensus on the best possible course of action, make a rapid, rough-and-ready diagnosis of residual symptoms of defective decision making and then take steps to eliminate them.

– Whenever the leader surmises that the group is not functioning at its highest potential level despite corrective efforts, make a careful diagnosis of the constraints that are sources of the resistance and take steps to counteract their influence.

adm 612 - leadership lecture 20 – leadership and decision making, part ii

Documents

decision process

problem important

bad decision

decision making

cognitive decision rules

high danger of major

potential losses

expert prediction