Management Skills Final Rutgers

Two Types of Influence Tactics

1. Interpersonal- influencing individuals and or group members

2. Procedural- managing rules or procedures used to exchange information and combine individual preference

Cialdini's 6 principles of influence

1. Liking

2. Reciprocity

3. Social Proof

4. Consistency

5. Authority

6. Scarcity

1. Liking

Similarity and Praise

individuals comply with requests from individuals or friends

examples: similarities (shared interests), compliments or praise, cooperation

2. Reciprocity

people repay in kind

people feel obligated to give back the form of behavior they receive

managers can elicit desired behavior by modeling it

examples: trust, a spirit of cooperation, pleasant demeanor

3. social proof

people follow the lead of similar others

People feel obligated to comply with request for behavior if it is consistent with what others are similarly doing

4.Consistency

People align with their clear commitments

people commit....

1. Actively- choice spoken out loud, written down, or made explicitly

2. Publicly- choice shared with others either spoken or written

3. Voluntarily - personal ownership

example: emailing or signing off of something

5.Authority

people defer to experts

people follow suggestion of people of legitimate authority

6.Scarcity

people want more of what they cant have

people see items and opportunities more valuable as they become less available

ex: exclusive info is better than widely available information

Additional tactic for interpersonal information ....establish

1. Establish your credibility

demonstrate expertise, integrity, trust

need to take an honest assessment of where you stand before you begin to persuade

Additional tactic for interpersonal information ....frame

2. Frame for common work

describe advantaged of your perspective and highlight shared benefits

Additional tactic for interpersonal information... Ev

Evidence

provide data, vivid examples, and stories

compelling and tangible quality

Additional tactic for interpersonal information....connect

Connect emotionally

show emotional commitment to your position and be in sync emotionally with your audience

Additional tactic for interpersonal information....build

Build coalitions

identify and form strategic alliances

persuasion involves compromise

Procedural Influence

•influencing the way that the group as a whole makes decisions or gets things done

•Techniques for influencing the rules or procedures used to exchange information and aggregate individual preferences - that is, for managing the group as a whole

Procedural Influence tactic #1

Controlling what goes on in the agenda

-what issues to consider?

-amount of time spent on each topic?

Procedural Influence tactic #2

influencing group norm

-allow criticism?

-limit talking time?

Procedural Influence tactic #3

Who speaks when

-speak early to frame discussion?

- pick an ally to speak first

Procedural Influence tactic #4

Shaping how decisions are made

-decision rule

-voting format

Procedural Influence tactic #5

Who sits where

-seating position determines leadership

-table configuration encourages collaboration

Group decision making

1. Conformity

2. Group Polarization

3. Groupthink

4. Social Loafing

1. conformity

a change in belief or behavior to fit in with the group

2. group polarization

tendency for group decisions or opinions of a group to become more extreme

the tendency for individuals' opinions within a group to become more extreme in the direction of the group's average opinion after discussion

3. Group think

Tendency for members of a group to value group consensus and cohesion over the critical evaluation of the decision.

-Extreme reluctance to communicate disagreements; no dissent

remedies

-Voice objectives and doubts

-Form subgroups to discuss critical issues before they are raised

-Use outside experts

-Have someone play the role of devil's advocate

-Leader impartiality

5. Social Loafing

tendency for individual effort to decrease as group increases

-Task perceived as being unimportant or uninteresting

-Group members feel their individual output is not identifiable

-Shared reward so no incentive to contribute more

-Coordination loss as more people perform the task

remedies

-Ensure tasks are challenging and important

-Emphasize personal accountability

decision making

identifying, evaluating, and choosing between alternatives that lead to desired results

Three models of decision making

1. the rational model-managers use a rational approach to decision making

2. bounded rationality-people are restricted in the information they possess, conduct a limited search for solutions, and settle for less than optimal solutions

3. garbage can model -decision making is haphazard, chaotic, unpredictable, and sometimes depends on luck

the rational model

Goal is to identify the optimal decision

Assumes that all information is available and complete

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 ( time, money, technology, resources)

results in not identifying all solutions

satisficing

-Satisfactory over optimal solution generated

satisficing

choosing a solution that meets some minimum qualifications, one that is "good enough"

Garbage Can Model

decision making is sloppy and unorganized

decision results from complex interaction of factors, including problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities—all floating randomly inside an organization

Act swiftly short cuts

why might managers not follow the rational model?

All information may not be available, assumptions, may not have all the resources, inferior, time consuming to way in all options its costly, stubborn and biased

What are the root causes of poor decision-making?

•Capital

•Time

•Tech

•Bias like over confidence

Obstacles to decision making #1 Biases

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

Obstacles to decision making #2 Heuristics

mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that people use to make quick judgments and decisions, especially when faced with complex situations or limited information

-Can help decision makers reduce uncertainty but can lead to errors that erode the quality of decisions

obstacles to decision making -self serving bias

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

•(locus of control) we blame the world point fingers

obstacles to decision making-Egocentric bias

see self as contributing more (give ourselves more credit than others give us and more credit than we give others) (LoC , fundamental...)

obstacles to decision making - False uniqueness

see self as favorably; as unique from others

obstacles to decision making - illusion of control

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

obstacles to decision making - overconfidence

unwarranted confidence in judgment; overestimate accuracy of estimates or forecasts

Halo effect

one attractive trait = other attractive traits

occurs when our positive impressions of people, brands, and products in one area lead us to have positive feelings in another area

Forked tail effect:

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

primary effect

first info we learn alters impression

Fundamental attribution error:

attribute behavior to personality traits rather than situational factors

a cognitive bias where individuals tend to overestimate the influence of personality traits and underestimate the role of situational factors when explaining the behavior of others

assuming someone is lazy for being late to work without considering that they might have had traffic issues or an unexpected family emergency

Obstacles to Effective Decision Making : Faulty perceptions about others- negative effects

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

confirmation bias

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

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

The base rate fallacy happens when people ignore general statistical information (the base rate) and focus too much on specific information. In decision-making, this leads to incorrect conclusions because the broader context is overlooked.

Insensitivity to sample size:

assume small samples not representative

People tend to treat results from small samples as more representative of the entire population than they actually are.

is a cognitive bias where people fail to account for the impact of sample size on the reliability of results

Representativeness-

make judgments on basis of stereotypical cues or information rather than more deliberate processing

where people judge the likelihood of something based on how much it resembles a typical case, rather than on actual probability.

Example: In hiring, a manager might assume a candidate from a prestigious school will perform better, simply because they “fit” the image of a successful employee, even if other evidence suggests otherwise.

Anchoring and Insufficient Adjustment

•: influenced by the first information received, even if it's irrelevant (e.g., first impressions anchor our decisions)

•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

Three Strategies to Enhance Decision Making

1. Decisional Balance Sheet

2. Problem Definition/Framing

3. Pre-Mortem Exercise

1. Decisional Balance Sheet

•Consideration in four different areas:

1.Gain/losses for self (e.g., income, free time)

2.Gain/losses for others (e.g., how does this decision affect family, friends, coworkers, customers, etc)

3.Self-approval or disapproval (e.g., pride, shame, alignment to ideals/values, etc.)

4.Approval or disapproval of others (e.g., will my friends feel I made the right choice, will I be criticized or ridiculed, will I be praised and respected, etc.)

•Evaluate the positive and negative aspects of each area

•Answers can be influenced by informational inputs and persuasive arguments

•Completeness and accuracy when filling in the decisional balance sheet before implementing a decision is critical

Technique #2: Bazerman's Problem Definition

•Obtaining a broader perspective of the problem through a wider search of information

1.Define the problem

•Selecting the right graduate school

2.Identify the criteria necessary to judge the multiple options

•Location, prestige, faculty, etc.

3.Weigh the criteria

•Rank #2 in terms of importance to you

4.Generate alternatives

•The schools that admitted you

5.Rate each alternatives against each criterion

•Rate each school on each criteria that you identified

6.Compute the optimal decision

Technique #3: Osland's 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.

Problem solving

•The essence of management is problem defining and problem solving

-Empowering employees and gaining their commitment

-Developing employee skills

-Final decisions are better understood by the group

-Generating more alternative solutions/ideas

programmed decisions

are routine, repetitive decisions that follow established rules, procedures, or guidelines. They are typically made in situations that occur regularly and have predictable outcomes.

Example: Approving standard employee vacation requests or reordering office supplies when inventory runs low.

Non programmed decisions

-New, novel, complex decisions having no proven answers

The Stages of Decision Making

•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

Kolb says problem solving is not linear but wave-like. Groups move outward to explore ideas (expansion) and inward to focus decisions (contraction).

Key concepts:

• Green Light / Red Light:
  Green light = free idea generation (no judgment).
  Red light = critical evaluation and decision-making.

• Believing / Doubting:
  Believing = openly explore ideas (divergent thinking).
  Doubting = test and challenge ideas (convergent thinking).

• Divergence / Convergence:
  Divergence = gather many ideas and perspectives.
  Convergence = narrow down to the best solutions.

This cycle repeats as needed to fully solve complex problems.

•Green Light/Red Light - The Kolb Model

•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

Think of the green mode as diverging to gather information and ideas, and the red mode as converging on a decision that allows the group to proceed to the next stage.

situation analysis

•Role: LEADER

•Visioning/Exploration

•Priority Setting

whats the most im

Problem Analysis

What are the Causes of the Problem?

•Role: DETECTIVE

•Information Gathering

•Problem Definition

Solution Analysis

What's the Best Solution?

•Role: INVENTOR

•Idea Getting

•Decision Making

Implementation Analysis

How do we Implement the Solution?

•Role: COORDINATOR

•Participation

•Planning

Group Decision Making in Organizations

1. consultative

2.consensus

3. democratic

Consultative

leader consults with members

consensus

1.: leader shares problem and together they generate/evaluate problem/solutions

democratic

problem given to group and members empowered to make the decision

Nominal Group Technique:

Generating and evaluating alternative solutions to a problem

Delphi Technique:

A method of reaching expert agreement through anonymous, multi-round questionnaires with feedback after each round.

Devil's Advocate:

assigning someone the role of critic

why?forcing the other team members to justify their decision. Avoids groupthink.

higher quality decision

The Dialectic Method:

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

method is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.

higher quality decision

Conflict

when one party believes another party has or is about to do something that will negatively effect something they care about

Helpful Conflict

C-type conflict, "cognitive conflict" or "task conflict" is conflict about task-related issues

encourages open communication enables people to learn from each other, and to consider each other's views ... then they'll be more likely to accept whatever the final decision is, too. This benefits team effectiveness because teams will be focused, creative, integrative and open.

Harmful Conflict

A-type, "affective conflict" or "relational conflict" is about

individual issues.

Blocks communication and draws the focus from the

team to the individuals.

Limits communication to a few people and decreases

the quality of work.

Decreases the likelihood that people will accept final

decisions and work together well in the long-term.

Teams LESS focused, creative, integrative and open.

Stage 1: Potential Opposition

Three conditions for conflict

1. communication

2. Structure

3. personable variables

Personal barriers to communication

individual attributes that hinder communication

physical barriers to communication

physical noise, time zone differences, physical distance, office design, etc.

Semantic Barriers to communication

words themselves

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

Buzzwords - overused words, faddish phrases (e.g., "transparency")

structure

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

•Conflict between groups --- COMPETE

-Competition for limited resources

-Differing priorities and goals

-Asserting their ideas

•Conflict within groups --- ROLE FORMALIZATION

-Overlapping or unclear job boundaries

-Unreasonable or unclear policies, standards, or rules

-Unreasonable deadlines or extreme time pressure

-Collective decision making

Personable Variables

Different personal styles or personality can create tension

•Incompatible personality traits

-E.g., introvert vs. extrovert; Type A vs Type B

•Differing value systems

-E.g., shop floor vs. c-suite

Stage 2: Cognition & Personalization

•The perception of conflict arises between the parties

•Emotions begin to get involved. In order for personalization to occur, the parties must feel that there is conflict via stress, anxiety, anger or frustration, resulting in emotional involvement

•Once conflict arises, individuals must make a decision on how to handle the problem

Stage 3: Intention to Manage Conflict

Each conflict category reflects varying levels of the following two dimensions:

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

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

Stage 3: Intention to Manage Conflict - 5 Styles

•Competing: Assertive and uncooperative; all about you

•Accommodating: Unassertive and cooperative (the opposite of Competing); self sacrifice, yielding

•Avoiding: Unassertive and uncooperative; avoiding the conflict; withdrawing

•Collaborating: Assertive and cooperative (the opposite of Avoiding); working together to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both

•Compromising: Intermediate in both Assertiveness and Cooperativeness - finding a mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties; seeking middle ground

Stage 4: Behavior

Intention to manage conflict--> Individual's behavior/other's behavior.

Stage 5: Outcomes

functional and dysfunctional

functional

-Improves the group's performance

-Improves the quality of decisions

•Stimulates creativity and innovations

•Encourages interest and curiosity among group members

•Provides the medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released

•Fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change

dysfunctional

-Hinders group performance

•Poor communication

•Reduces group cohesiveness

•Ignores group goals

•Infighting between members

-Could lead to the destruction/dissolution of the group

Why Negotiate?

-Interdependence

-People need to be able to work together across business units and divisions

-Dynamic nature of business

-People must continually create possibilities, integrate their interests with others, and recognize the inevitability of competition both within and between companies

-An increasingly diverse set of customers/clients/partners

-Increased inter/intra-organizational competition

What is negotiation?

-A process in which two or more people or groups share their concerns and interests to reach an agreement of mutual benefit

Positions

one party's stance regarding the issue (stated agenda)

Interests

•underlying concerns that would be affected by the resolution (hidden agenda)

•The private interests of the negotiator behind the positions

BATNA:

•Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

-Alternative if no agreement reached

-The better the BATNA, the more power you have in negotiating

Reservation (Resistant) Price:

Least favorable point to accept an agreement

-"Bottom line" price

-For the Buyer, it's the most they are willing to pay

-For the Seller, it's the least they are willing to sell for

Bargaining Zone (ZOPA):

•Zone of Possible Agreement

-Range between reservation prices

Target Price

Realistic view of getting the highest achievable outcome from a negotiation

Distributive Bargaining

A negotiation strategy in which one person gains and the other person loses