MANAGEMENT SKILLS FINAL EXAM

5 Teamwork Competencies

Commitment, Communication, Capabilities, Standards, Focus

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

Robert Cialdini- The 6 Principles of Influence

Reciprocity, Scarcity, Commitment and Consistency, Social Proof, Authority, Liking

1: Reciprocity

• ➢ People feel obligated to give back the form of behavior they receive

  • Managers can elicit the desired behaviors in coworkers and employees by displaying it first --- modeling the behavior

  For example...

  • Trust

  • Spirit of cooperation

  • Pleasant demeanor

• Example: free samples in stores increase the likelihood of purchase

2: Scarcity

• People desire things that are rare or limited in availability.

• Tactics emphasize urgency or exclusivity to increase appeal.

• Secure those opportunities that are scarce or dwindling

• Frame things not in terms of what can be gained, but what might be lost if people don’t act on the information

For example...

• Exclusive information is more persuasive than widely available data

3: Commitment & Consistency

• People strive to be consistent with what they've said or done before.

• Example: voters who commit to voting in advance are more likely to follow through.

•  After committing to a position actively, publicly, and voluntarily, people are more willing to comply with requests for behaviors that are consistent with that position

  • Actively – choice spoken out loud, written down, or made explicitly

  • Publicly – choice shared with others, either spoken or in writing

  • Voluntarily – personal ownership is more effective than something forced, coerced, or imposed

  For example...

  • Emailing or signing off on something that you are going to do

4: Social Proof (Consensus)

• People follow the actions of others, especially similar others.

• Example: hotel guests reused towels more when told others do the same—compliance increased by 28%.

• People feel obligated to comply with a request for behavior if it is consistent with what similar others are thinking or doing (social evidence)

  •  Persuasion can be extremely effective if it comes from peers

  •  Influence is best exerted horizontally rather than vertically

  For example...

  • Testimonials from satisfied customers work best when the satisfied customer and the prospective customer share similar circumstances

5: Authority

• People follow credible, knowledgeable experts.

• Example: displaying therapists’ credentials increased compliance with treatment plans by 30%.

• For example...

  • Uniforms

  • Advanced degrees or certifications

  • Work and life experience

6: Liking

• People say “yes” more often to those they like or relate to.

• Similarity, familiarity, and flattery increase likability.

 Two ways to influence individuals through Liking: Similarity and Praise

• Individuals are more willing to comply with the requests of friends or other liked individuals

For example...

• Similarity (e.g., shared interests, major, music, etc.). Helps create bonds.

• Compliments, Praise

• Cooperation

Influence takeaways

• Influence works best when it reflects genuine social cues and psychological truths.

• Understanding influence empowers people to recognize manipulation and make better choices.

Group Dynamics in Decision-Making

• Major Influence (Conformity)

• Group Polarization

• Group Think

• Social Loafing

Majority Influence (Conformity)

• Individuals often conform to group norms to avoid conflict or gain social approval.

Sherif’s Study (Conformity Study)

• Showed that when reality is ambiguous, people rely on others’ judgments, forming internalized group norms (autokinetic effect).

Asch’s Study (Conformity Study)

Even when the correct answer is obvious, people still conformed 30% of the time to a clearly wrong majority.

Cognitive conflict

• Unanimous but wrong group responses cause individuals to doubt their senses.

Informational Influence

People conform because they think the group is right.

Normative Influence

• People conform to gain approval or avoid rejection.

Liberating Effect

A minority gives others the freedom to disagree with the majority.

Belief Conversion

1. The majority begins to seriously consider the minority’s position, often leading to private attitude change.

   1. Moscovici’s Studies: Minorities can influence majority judgments (e.g., calling blue slides “green”)—but only if consistent.

Group Polarization (Conformity)

• After discussion, group members tend to adopt more extreme versions of their initial views.

Social Comparison Theory

• People shift to be more aligned with perceived group norms.

Persuasive Arguments Theory

•  New, issue-relevant arguments during discussion deepen convictions.

Groupthink

•  occurs when groups prioritize harmony over realistic decision-making.

• Symptoms include:

  • Suppression of dissent (2 differing opinions)

  • Illusions of unanimity

  • Overconfidence in decisions

Social Loafing

Tendency for individual effort to decline as the group size increases

Group Dynamics Takeaways

• Majority influence often results in public compliance but not internal change.

• Minority influence can lead to private belief change, even when public agreement is absent.

• In real-world group settings, these forces interact, sometimes causing group polarization or groupthink, which can lead to risky or poor decisions if not managed carefully

Why Influence is Important

Examples of Practical Use:

• Gaining buy-in for initiatives or changes

• Getting others to comply with work-related requests (e.g., deadlines, resources)

• Resolving disagreements

• Guiding others toward better decisions
  Key Point:
  Influence is not just an art—it can be learned and used strategically.

1. Interpersonal Influence

Influencing individuals and group members directly.

Additional tactics:

• Establish Your Credibility

  • Demonstrate expertise and trustworthiness

  • Build trust through open communication and one-on-one interactions

• Frame for Common Ground

  • Emphasize mutual interests and shared benefits

  • Understand your audience and highlight alignment

• Provide Evidence

  • Use data, vivid examples, stories, and analogies

  • Make your viewpoint clear and compelling

• Connect Emotionally

  • Show belief in your position

  • Align your emotional tone with that of your audience

• Build Coalitions

Procedural Influence

Influencing how group decisions are structured and made. Managing the rules or procedures used to exchange information and aggregate individual preference

Tactics:

1. Control the Agenda

   • Decide which issues are discussed

   • Influence how much time is spent on each topic

2. Influence Group Norms

   • Set expectations for group behavior (e.g., allow or limit criticism, time limits)

3. Who Speaks When
   
   

   • Speak early to shape the discussion

   • Arrange for allies to speak first

   • Use nonverbal cues strategically

4. Shape How Decisions Are Made

   • Choose decision rules carefully (e.g., avoid majority rule if you're in the minority)

   • Use public voting to influence opinion

   • Time the vote to capitalize on early support

5. Who Sits Where

   • Use seating arrangements to establish leadership and visibility

   • Table setup can impact collaboration and influence

Mass Influencing

the ability to significantly impact the beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors of a large group of people, often through the power of mass media or other influential channels.

Abiline Paradox:

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

12 Angry Men

In 12 Angry Men, 12 jurors must decide the fate of a boy accused of murder. Initially, 11 vote guilty, 1 votes not guilty—juror #8—who urges the group to reconsider the evidence. Through calm reasoning, emotional appeals, and persistent questioning, he gradually shifts the opinions of the others, leading to a unanimous not guilty verdict.
Key Influence Concepts:

• Minority Influence: Juror #8 is consistent and confident, eventually swaying the majority (Moscovici’s theory).

• Normative Pressure: Early votes reflect desire for agreement, not certainty.

• Informational Influence: As evidence is re-examined, jurors change views based on new reasoning.

• Procedural Influence: Juror #8 controls discussion flow and challenges assumptions without confrontation.

Avoiding Groupthink: Dissent opens space for deeper thinking and better judgment.

Decision Making

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

Decision Making 3 Models

The Rational Model - managers use a rational approach to decision making
Bounded Rationality – people are restricted in the information they possess, conduct a limited search for solutions, and settle for less-than optimal solutions
Garbage Can Model – decision making is haphazard, chaotic, unpredictable, and sometimes depends on luck

Rational Model

• Goal is to identify the optimal decision

• Assumes that all information is available and complete

EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING

• Benefits of using this model:

  • The quality of decisions may be enhanced

  • It makes the reasoning behind a decision transparent

Bounded Rationality

• decision makers are “bounded” or restricted by a variety of constraints when making decisions (e.g., time, money, technology, resources, etc.). Results in not identifying all alternative solutions.

  • ➢ Satisficing - choosing a solution that meets some minimum qualifications, one that is “good enough”. Satisfactory vs. optimal solution

Garbage Can Model

• decision making is sloppy and haphazard. Decisions result from complex interaction of factors: problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities – all floating randomly inside an organization.

  • ➢ Sometimes, organizations create solutions even before they have a defined problem

Obstacles to Effective Decision Making: Biases

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

Obstacles to Effective Decision Making: Heuristics

rules 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.

Obstacles to Effective Decision Making: Faulty perceptions about ourselves 

Self-serving bias, egocentric bias, false uniqueness, illusion of control, overconfidence

Self-serving bias

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

Egocentric bias:

• see self as contributing more (give ourselves more credit than others give us and more credit than we give others)

False Uniqueness

•  see self favorably, as unique from others

Illusion of control

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

Overconfidence

unwarranted confidence in judgment; overestimate accuracy of estimates or forecasts

Obstacles to Effective Decision Making: Faulty perceptions about others

Halo effect, forked tail effect, primacy effect, negativity effect, fundamental attribution error, confirmation bias

Halo effect

• one attractive trait = other attractive traits

Forked tail effect:

• opposite of halo effect: one undesirable trait =other negative traits

Primacy effect

•  first info we learn alters impression

Negativity effect:

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

Fundamental attribution error

• attribute behavior to personality traits rather than situational factors

Confirmation bias:

• subconsciously seek information that confirms our expectations and discount information that does not (e.g., reinforce what we already know)

Obstacles to Effective Decision Making: Superficial Processing or Too Little Info

Availability bias, hindsight bias, base rate fallacy, insensitivity to sample size, representativeness, anchoring and adjustment, framing, 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 judgments on basis of stereotypical cues or information rather than more deliberate processing

Anchoring & Adjustment

 influenced by the first inform

Framing

• tendency to consider risks about gains differently than risks pertaining to losses

Escalation of commitment

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

Technique 1: The Decisional Balance Sheet

• Pros and cons of doing something and not doing something

• Consideration in four different areas:

  • Gain/losses for self

  • Gain/losses for others

  • Self-approval or disapproval

  • Approval or disapproval of others

Technique 2: 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

Technique 3: 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

Post-Mortem Approach

• After Action Review

• Lessons Learned

(Applied Learning to avoid bad decisions)

Realities of Problem solving

risk, uncertainty, lack of structure, conflict

Best of Intentions

Cynthia Mitchell, a newly promoted district manager at AgFunds, faces a tough ethical and professional decision. She wants to hire Steve Ripley—a highly qualified, personable Black MBA graduate—for a crucial sales role in her struggling Arkansas district. However, her boss, Peter Jones, warns her that the region’s predominantly white, conservative clients would not accept a Black representative, citing the past failures of equally capable Black employees in similar areas.

Key Themes:

• Discrimination cloaked as pragmatism

• Moral responsibility vs. business strategy

• How systemic bias limits opportunities

• Transparency, trust, and the weight of leadership decisions

Summary of Dan Ariely's Talk on Irrational Behavior

Dan Ariely explores how humans often make irrational decisions due to predictable cognitive biases. Using visual illusions as a metaphor, he shows how our perceptions deceive us—and argues that our decision-making is subject to similar, unconscious distortions.

The Space Shuttle Columbia - Disaster Video [X-Plane 11]

 a simulation that recreates the 2003 Columbia tragedy using X-Plane 11. It shows the shuttle’s reentry, the damage to its wing from foam insulation during launch, and its eventual midair breakup. The video aims to educate viewers on how the disaster unfolded and honor the seven astronauts who lost their lives.

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

The Stages of Decision Making (David Kolb)

Stage 1: Situational Analysis
What’s the Most Important Problem?
Role: Leader
Visioning/Exploration
Priority Setting
Stage 2: Problem Analysis
What are the Causes of the Problem?
Role: Detective
Information Gathering
Problem Definition
Stage 3: Solution Analysis
What’s the Best Solution?
Role: Inventor
Idea getting
Decision making
Stage 4: Implementation Analysis
How Do We Implement the Solution?
Role: Coordinator
Participation
Planning

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

• Believing/Doubting

• Divergence/Convergence

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

Consultative

leader consults with members

Consensus:

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

Democratic:

problem given to group and members empowered to make the decision

Group Decision Making Techniques

Brainstorming, Nominal Group Techniques, Delphi, Devils Advocate, Dialectic Method, GE workout, Open Space

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 the order they appear)
   Questions, clarification, avoid judgment/criticism

5. Voting and ranking
   Each member privately prioritizes & ranks each idea in relation to the original problem

Delphi

Participants don’t engage face-to-face discussions. Their input is solicited by mail/email
1. Each member receives the same questions
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 Dialetic Method

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

Cardiotronics

 CONTEXT: Chris, a recent MBA graduate, joins Cardiotronics—a medical devices company—as a product manager. He’s enthusiastic but soon faces resistance from his team, especially a senior engineer named Ron.

Key Issues:

• Chris tries to lead with rational arguments and data, but fails to gain buy-in.

• Ron feels undermined and ignored due to Chris’s top-down communication style.

• Chris lacks interpersonal influence and emotional intelligence, which leads to tension and pushback.

• There’s no shared vision, and Chris doesn’t build relationships or credibility with the team first.

Takeaways:

• Influence is not just about logic—it's also about relationships, trust, and emotional connection.

• To lead effectively, especially without formal authority, you must:

  • Build credibility

  • Understand your audience

  • Frame ideas to align with others’ interests

  • Connect emotionally

  • Use coalitions and consensus

Karen Leary

In this case, Ted Chung, a promising new financial consultant at Merrill Lynch, requests a private office. Branch manager Karen Leary is surprised and explains that private offices are earned through long-term performance, not just early success. Despite this, Chung insists on receiving the office immediately and submits his resignation, saying he will transfer to another branch if his request is not granted.

Leary, knowing that interbranch transfers are rare, doesn’t mention this policy but instead tries to understand Chung’s mindset. While he expresses admiration for her leadership, Chung continues to pressure her, claiming his value to the firm warrants the office now. Leary ends the meeting undecided, disappointed that Chung offers no apology or acknowledgment that he may have overstepped.

Key Issue:
A conflict arises between cultural expectations, management authority, and differing views on how rewards and recognition should be earned.

Conflict

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

C-type Conflict (Helpful)

• 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

• Decision quality declines along with the commitment and understanding necessary to get 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

Positive and Negative Outcomes of Conflict

• Work groups, departments, or organizations experiencing too little conflict tend to be plagued by apathy, lack of creativity, indecision.

• Excessive conflict can erode organizational performance because of political infighting, dissatisfaction, lack of teamwork and turnover. Bullying is unhealthy conflict.

• Appropriate types and levels of conflict energize people in constructive ways.

Conditions for Conflict: Communication

Conflict can occur when there is “noise” in our communication
1. Personal Barriers – any individual attribute that hinders communication e.g., different skill levels, variation in processing and interpretation, trust issues, stereotypes, prejudices, egos, poor listening skills, etc.
2. Physical Barriers – physical noise, time zone differences, physical distance, office design, etc.
3. Semantic Barriers – words themselves

• Jargon – language, acronyms, or terminology specific to a profession,group or company

•  Buzzwords – overused words, faddish phrases (e.g., “transparency”)

Condition for Conflict: Structure

Conflict can occur when the organization or team structure creates ambiguity in who is responsible for what

• Conflict between groups

  • Competition for limited resources

  • Differing priorities and goals

  • Asserting their ideas

• 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

Different personal styles or personality can create tension:

1. Incompatible personality traits (e.g., introvert vs. extrovert; Type A vs Type B)

2. Differing value systems (e.g., Democrat vs Republican)

Concern for Self

the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns.

Concern for Others

the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns.

Assertiveness

the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns.

Cooperativeness

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

Conflict Styles (ITP Model)

Dominating, Integrating, Avoiding, Accommodating, Compromising

Dominating:

• High self-concern, low concern for others ("My way or the highway").

  • Taking quick action

  • Making unpopular decisions

  • Standing up for vital issues

  • Protecting yourself

  • Assertive, uncooperative

Integrating

• High concern for both ("Can we reach an agreement?").

  • "Can we reach agreement"

  • Looking for win/win

  • Creating goodwill

  • Understanding the other person(s)

  • Keeping things in perspective

  • Assertive and cooperative

Avoiding

• Low concern for both ("I'll think about it tomorrow").

  • Leaving unimportant issues alone

  • Reducing tensions

  • Buying time

  • Knowing your limitations

  • Allowing others ownership

  • Recognizing issues as symptoms

  • Unassertive, uncooperative