Management Skills Final (Prof. Anthony Lucas)

Six Fundamental Principles of Persuasion

1. Liking
2. Reciprocity
3. Social Proof
4. Consistency
5. Authority
6. Scarcity
Robert Cialdini

Liking

People like those who like them; uncover real similarities and offer genuine praise

Reciprocity

People repay in kind; give what you want to receive

Social Proof

People follow the lead if similar others; use peer power whenever it's available

Consistency

People align with their clear commitments; Make their commitments active, public, and voluntary

Authority

People defer to experts; expose your expertise, don't assume it's self evident

Scarcity

People want more of what they can have less of; highlight unique benefits and exclusive information

Influence

The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something; ability to create an impact on the beliefs and actions of others without forcing them

Power

The authority to get things done by others and pushing people to do things

Types of influence tactics

1. Interpersonal
2. Procedural
3. Mass Influencing

Interpersonal

Influencing other individuals and/or group members

1. Establish your credibility
2. Frame for common ground
3. Provide evidence
4. Connect emotionally
5. Build coalitions

Procedural Influence

Managing the rules or procedures used to exchange information and aggregate individual preferences; Influencing the way that the group as a whole gets things done

1. Controlling what goes on the agenda
2. Influencing group norms
3. Who speaks when
4. Shaping how decisions are made
5. Who sits where

Mass Influencing

Through media "influencing many"

Abiline Paradox

The tendency of people to resist voicing their true thoughts or feelings in order to please others and avoid conflict

Group Dynamics

1. Conformity
2. Group Polarization
3. Groupthink
4. Social Loafing

Conformity

A change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with the group

Group Polarization

Tendency for decisions and opinions of people in a group setting to become more extreme than their actual, privately held beliefs

Social Comparison Theory

individuals shift their opinions so as to gain approval or be accepted by other group members

Persuasive Argument Theory

Shift is a consequence of the addition of new and more persuasive arguments (more and better reasons to support a position)

Groupthink

Tendency of group members of a group to value group consensus and cohesion over the critical evaluation of the decision. Goal is to reach unanimous decision

Social Loafing

Tendency for individual effort to decline as group size increases

Decisions Making

Identifying and choosing alternative solutions that lead to a desired end result

Three models of Decision Making

1. The rational model
2. Bounded rationality
3. Garbage can model

The Rational Model (rational)

Managers use a rational approach to decision making; identify optimal decision

Bounded Rationality (non rational)

People are restricted in the information they possess, conduct a limited search for solutions, and settle for less-than optimal solutions

Garbage Can Model (non rational)

Decision making is haphazard, chaotic, unpredictable, and sometimes depends on luck

Biases

A preference of inclination for or against someone/something that can inhibit impartial judgement

Heuristics

Rule of thumb or shortcuts that people use to reduce information processing demands. Can help decision makers reduce uncertainty but can lead to errors that erode the quality of decisions

Faulty Perceptions About Ourselves

1. Self-serving bias
2. Egocentric bias
3. False uniqueness
4. Illusion of control
5. Overconfidence

Self-serving bias (ourselves)

View self in positive light; attribute success to internal qualities and failures to circumstances beyond our control

Egocentric bias (ourselves)

See self as contributing more than others

False Uniqueness (ourselves)

See self favorably, as unique from others

Illusion of control (ourselves)

Tendency to believe that we exert more influence over situations than we actually do

Overconfidence (ourselves)

Unwarranted confidence in judgemental overestimate accuracy of estimated or forecasts

Faulty perceptions about others

1. Halo effect
2. Forked tail effect
3. Primacy effect
4. Negativity effect
5. Fundamental attribution error
6. Confirmation bias

Halo effect (others)

one attractive trait = other attractive traits

Forked tail effect (others)

Opposite of halo effect: one undesirable trait = other negative traits

Primacy effect (others)

First info we learn alters impression

Negativity Effect (others)

Once we learn negative into about someone, tend to put a lot of weight on that info

Fundamental attribution error (others)

Attribute behavior to personality traits rather than situational factors

Confirmation bias (others)

Subconsciously seek information that confirms our expectations and discount information that does not

Superficial Processing or Too Little Info

1. Availability bias
2. Hindsight bias
3. Base rate fallacy
4. Insensitivity to sample size
5. Representativeness
6. Anchoring and adjustment
7. Framing
8. Escalation of commitment

Availability bias

Make decisions based on information readily available

Hindsight bias

Believe something was inevitable after it happened

Base rate fallacy

Choose to rely on single, vivid data point rather than more reliable data

Insensitivity to sample size

Assume small samples not representative

Representativeness

Make judgements on basis of stereotypical cues or information rather than more deliberate processing

Anchoring and adjustment

Influenced by the first information received, even if it's irrelevant

Framing

Tendency to consider risks about grains differently than risks pertaining to losses

Escalation of commitment

Continue to irrationally invest in an ineffective course of action due to sunk costs

3 Strategies to enhance decision making

1. Decisional Balance Sheet
2. Problem Definition/Framing
3. Pre-Mortem Exercise (Osland)

Bazerman's Problem Definition

Obtaining a broader perspective of the problem through a wider search of information
1. Define the problem
2. Identify the criteria
3. Weigh the criteria
4. Generate alternatives
5. Rate each alternative on each criterion
6. Compute the optimal decision

Osland Pre-Mortem Exercise

1) Preparation - Individuals thoroughly review the plan
2) Imagine a fiasco - Decision-makers imagine that the project or plan is a complete and utter failure. What could cause this?
3) Generate reasons for failure - Individuals write down all the reasons why they think the failure occurred.
4) Consolidate lists - Each individual states one reason for failure until all reasons have been shared.
5) Revisit the plan - Individuals address two or three issues of major concern. Another meeting is scheduled to discuss all remaining issues.
6) Review the list - Individuals review the list of concerns to make sure that all concerns have been addressed.

Limitations (Should not be used when:)

Decisions are extremely complex and uncertain
Decision makers have not had a chance to acquire specific expertise
Decision maker's experience base is limited or distorted

Programmed decisions

Decisions encountered and made before, having objectively correct answers, and solvable by using simple rules, policies, or numerical computations.

Non programmed decisions

New, novel, complex decisions having no proven answers

Stages of Decision Making (David Kolb)

Stage 1: Situational Analysis
What's the Most Important Problem?
Stage 2: Problem Analysis
What are the Causes of the Problem?
Stage 3: Solution Analysis
What's the Best Solution?
Stage 4: Implementation Analysis
How Do We Implement the Solution?

The Kolb Model of Group Problem Solving

Problem solving does not proceed in a logical, linear fashion from beginning to end. It is more wave like, characterized by expansions and contractions - moving outwardly to gather information and then focus inwardly for analysis/decisions.

Green light/Red light

Green mode = Expansive Phases
Creative imagination
Sensitivity to the immediate situation
Empathy with other people

Red mode = Contraction Phases
Analysis
Criticism
Logical Thinking
Coping with the External Environment

Situation Analysis

Role: Leader
Visioning/Exploration
Priority Setting

Problem Analysis

Role: Detective
Information Gathering
Problem Definition

Implementation Analysis

Role: Coordinator
Participation
Planning

Solution Analysis

Role: Inventor
Idea getting
Decision making

Roles in group decision making

1. Consultative
2. Consensus
3. Democratic

Consultative

Leader consults with members

Consensus

Leader shares problem and together they generate/evaluate problem/solutions

Democrartic

Problem given to group and members empowered to make the decision

Group Decision Making Techniques

1) Brainstorming
2) Nominal group technique
3) Delphi technique
4) Devil's Advocate
5) The Dialectic Method
6) The GE Workout (Jack Welsh)
7) Open Space (Harrison Owen)

Brainstorming

Generating alternative solutions to a problem
1. Do not evaluate or discuss alternatives - avoid criticism
2. Encourage "freewheeling" - all ideas are considered, even crazy ones
3. Encourage and welcome quantities of ideas - the greater the number of ideas, the more to consider
4. Encourage "piggybacking" - combine, embellish, or improve on others idea

Nominal Group Technique

Generating and evaluating alternative solutions to a problem
1. Introduction/posting of problem
2. Silent generation of ideas (5-10 min)
3. Round-robin recording of ideas
4. Discussion of ideas (in order they appear)
- Questions, clarification, avoid judgment/criticism
5. Voting and ranking
- Each member privately prioritizes and tanks each idea in relation to original problem

Delphi Technique

Participants don't engage face to face discussions. Their input is solicited by mail/email
1. Each member receives the same question
2. Anonymous writes comments, suggestions, solutions
3. Information is compiled and redistributed
4. Feedback is provided on the collective comments
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until consensus is reached

Devils Advocate

Assigning someone the role of critic

The Dialectic Method

Calls for managers to foster a structured debate of opposing viewpoints prior to making a decision

Conflict

Any situation in which your concerns or desires differ from those of another person

C-type conflict (cognitive conflict)

- Focuses attention on the often ignores assumptions that may underlie a particular issue
- Encourages innovative thinking an promotes creative solutions to problems
- Builds understanding and commitment to the trams goals and decisions (results in "buy in")
- Improves team effectiveness: More focused, creative integrative and open

A-type conflict (affective conflict)

- Decision quality declines along with the commitment and understanding necessary to het the decision successfully implemented
- Provoked hostility, district, cynicism, and apathy among team members, thereby obstructing open communication and integration
- Decreases the likelihood that people will accept final decisions and work together well in the long term
- Decreases team effectiveness: Less focused, creative, integrative, and open

Condition for conflict: Communication

1. Personal Barriers - any individual attribute that hinders communication
2. Physical barriers - Physical noise, time zone differences, physical distance, office design
3. Semantic barriers - words themselves

Condition for conflict: Structure

1. Conflict between groups
- Competition for limited resources
- Differing priorities and goals
- Asserting their ideas
2. Conflict within groups
- Overlapping or unclear job boundaries
- Unreasonable or unclear policies, standards, or rules
- Unreasonable deadlines or extreme time pressure
- Collective decision making

Condition for conflict: Personal Variables

1. Incompatible personality traits
2. Differing value systems

Concern for self

The extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy their own concerns

Concern for others

The extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person's concerns

Dominating

"my way or the highway"
- Taking quick action
- Making unpopular decisions
- Standing up for vital issues
- Protecting yourself

Integrating

"Can we reach agreement"
- Looking for win/win
- Creating goodwill
- Understanding the other person(s)
- Keeping things in perspective

Avoiding

"I'll think about it tomorrow"
- Leaving unimportant issues alone
- Reducing tensions
- Buying time
- Knowing your limitations
- Allowing others ownership
- Recognizing issues as symptoms

Accommodating

"It would be my pleasure"
- Showing reasonableness
- Creating goodwill
- Keeping "peace"
- Retreating
- Maintaining perspective

Compromising

"Let's make a deal"
- Resolving issues of moderate importance
- Reaching resolution with equal power and strong commitment
- Creating temporary solutions
- Dealing with time constraints

3 Common types of issues (negotiating)

1. Distributive
2. Integrative
3. Congruent

Distributive

Gain for one = loss for other (opposed preferences)

Integrative

Gain for one = relative small loss for other (complimentary preferences)

Congruent

Each want the same thing (compatible preferences)

What goes wrong in negotiations?

1. Overconfidence
2. Framing effects
3. Escalation of commitment
4. Fixed-pie bias
5. Asymmetrical information

Overconfidence

Leads us to behave stubbornly

Framing effects

What order we hear information in changes how we evaluate our options. Also focusing only on single issue

Escalation of commitment

We become too invested to walk away, even when its clearly in our self-interest to do so

Fixed-pie bias

Assumption that our interests must be opposite-leads away from mutually beneficial trade offs and away from capitalizing on compatible issues

Asymmetrical information

Sellers usually have better information, so buyers often overbid