Feedback: results of behavior related to individuals for their use and learning; focused on past behavior, given in the present, with the goal of influencing the future

Effective feedback: person understands the feedback, person accepts the feedback, person can do something about the feedback; work-related, documented, timely, frequent, constructive and balanced, in an appropriate setting, interactive, avoid comparison to others, avoid pressing for admission of fault, dedal with emotional reactions, convey receiver is respected and worthwhile

Receiving feedback: try to understand POV, don’t take things personally, check body language, listen, ask for clarification, summarize, ongoing performance folder, openness, ask for suggestions for improvement

Why tell stories? Simple, timeless, contagious, easy to remember, inspire, appeal, engage

STAR method: situation, task, action, result

Enhancing stories: content (what), delivery (how), connection

Power: authority to get things done, might not generate respect, positional, pushes people, authoritative figures

Influence: persuasion, generates respect, personal, create impact, no position required; can be learned and strategically employed

Interpersonal: influencing other individuals and/or group members; establish credibility, frame common ground, provide evidence, connect emotionally, build coalitions

Procedural: managing the rules or procedures used to exchange information and aggregate individual preferences; control agenda, influence group norms, control who speaks, shape how decisions are made, control seating positions

Cialidini’s 6 Principles of Influence: liking, reciprocity, social proof, consistency, authority, scarcity

Effective leadership: need to act consistently with one’s values

Group dynamics: conformity, group polarization, groupthink, social loafing

Conformity: change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with the group

Group polarization: tendency for decisions and opinions fo people in a group setting to become more extreme than their actually, privately held beliefs

Social comparison theory: individuals shift their opinions as to gain approval or be accepted by others

Persuasive argument theory: shift is a consequence of teh addition of new and more persuasive arguments 

Groupthink: tendency for members of a group to value group consensus and cohesion over the critical evaluation of the decision

Social loafing: tendency for individual effort to decline as group size increases

Decision making: identifying and choosing alternative solutions that lead to a desired end result

The rational model: managers use a rational approach to decision making; identify and diagnose problem, generate alternative solutions, evaluate alternatives and select a solution, implement and evaluate; goal is to identify optimal decision given all information is available and complete; quality of decisions may be enhanced, makes reasoning behind a decision transparent

The non rational model: simon’s normative model/bounded rationality & garbage can model

Simon’s Normative Model/Bounded Rationality: people are restricted in the information they possess, conduct a limited search for solutions, and settle for less than optimal solutions; bounded rationality = constraints, can’t identify all alternative solutions; satisficing = “good enough” option

Garbage can model: decision making is haphazard, chaotic, unpredictable, and sometimes depends on luck

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

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

Self-serving bias: view self in a 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 judgement, overestimate accuracy of estimates or forecasts

Halo effect: one attractive trait = other attractive traits

Forked tail 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 discounts information that does not (reinforce what we already know)

Availability bias: make decisions based on information readily available

Hindishgt 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 are 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 irrelevant

Framing: tendency to consider risks about gains different than risks pertaining to losses

Escalation of commitment: continue to irrationally invest in an ineffective course of action due to sunk costs

Evidence based decision making: represents a process of conscientiously using the best available data and evidence when making managerial decisions; helps ensure managers use relevant and reliable data from different sources and avoid their personal biases when making decisions

Decision making styles: combination of how individual perceives and responds to informations; value orientation, tolerance for ambiguity

Value orientation: extend to which an individual focuses on either task and technical concerns or people and social concerns when making decisions

Tolerance for ambiguity: extent to which a person has a high need for structure or control

Analytical: high tolerance for ambiguity, task value orientation; this style has much higher tolerance for ambiguity and is characterized

by the tendency to overanalyze a situation (analysis paralysis)

Directive: low tolerance for ambiguity, task value orientation; people with this style have low tolerance for ambiguity and are oriented

toward task and technical concerns when making decisions (efficient, logical)

Conceptual: high tolerance for ambiguity, people value orientation; people with this style have a high tolerance for ambiguity and tend to

focus on the people or social aspects of a work situation (creative, long term view)

Behavioral: low tolerance for ambiguity, people value orientation; people with this style work well with others and enjoy social interactions in which opinions are openly exchanged (avoids conflict, wishy washy)

Decisional balance sheet: gains/losses for self, gains/losses for others, self-approval or disapproval, approval or disapproval of others

Decision tree: map of possible choices and potential outcomes

Bazerman’s problem definition: obtaining a broader perspective of the problem through a wider search of information, define identify weigh criteria, generate alternatives, rate each alternative, compute optimal decision

Osland pre-mortem exercise: preparation, imagine a fiasco, generate reasons for failure, consolidate lists, revisit the plan, review the list; should not be used when decisions are complex, uncertain, no specific expertise, 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: situational analysis, problem analysis, solution analysis, implementation analysis

Kolb model of group problem solving: does not proceed in a logical linear fashion from beginning to end, it is more wave like (expansions and contractions); green light / red light, believing / doubting, divergence / convergence

Situation analysis: determine right problem to tackle, leadership identifies values and goals, envision what is possible, trial and error exploration of what’s going on; avoid accepting problem as a given, pressure to be realistic, conflicting viewpoints, threat of isolation

Problem analysis: understand and define the problem thoroughly, gather information, create scenarios, build model portraying how the problem works; avoid defining the problem in terms of its solution, avoid biases and preconceptions, mistrust and threat, don’t just say what management wants to hear

Solution analysis: generate ideas about how problem can be solved and assess feasibility, creatively search for ideas, evaluate, brainstorm; don’t assume only one right answer, don’t just get stuck on first solution, don’t be anxious to finish

Implementation analysis: work to accomplish tasks, enlist appropriate involvement, define tasks, identify individuals, set deadlines, plan for monitoring; failure to gain commitment, failure to assign clear responsibility, failure to follow up

Consultative: leader consults with members

Consensus: leader shares problem and together they generate/evaluate problems/solutions

Democratic: problem given to group and members empowered to make the decision

Brainstorming: generate alternative solutions to a problem

Nominal group technique: introduction, silent generation, round-robin, discussion, vote, rank

Delphi technique: no face-to-face discussions, input solicited by mail or email

Devil’s advocate: assign someone the role of a critic

The dialectic method: calls for managers to foster a structured debate of opposing viewpoints prior to making a decision

Conflict: a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has been negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something the first part cares about

C-type conflict, cognitive conflict, task conflict: helpful, focuses attention on ignored assumptions, encourages innovative thinking, builds understanding and trust; improves team effectiveness

A-type conflict, affective conflict, relational conflict: individual issues that decline decision quality, prove hostility, etc; decreases team effectiveness

The conflict process: potential opposition, cognition & personalization, intention, behavior, outcomes

Potential opposition: communication, structure, personal variables

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

Physical barriers: physical noise, time zones, distance, office design

Semantic barriers: jargon, buzzwords, words themselves

Cognition & personalization: perception of conflict, emotions

Intention to manage: dominating/competing, compromising, integrating/collaborating, avoiding, accommodating

Assertiveness: extent to which individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns

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

Negotiation: 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 stands one the issues

Interests: underlying concerns that would be affected by the resolution

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA): alternative if no agreement reached, better the BATNA, more power in negotiation

Reservation resistant price: least favorable point to accept an agreement

Bargaining zone, zone of possible agreement (ZOPA): range between reservation prices

Target price: realistic view of getting the highest achievable outcome from a negotiation

Distributive bargaining: divide up fixed amount of resources, win-lose, fundamentally opposed, single issue, no regard for building future relationships; heavy reliance on strategies aimed at maximizing one’s personal outcome/utility; claiming most value for self; obtain information from other party while concealing information

Integrative bargaining: win-win, congruent or convergent interests, cooperative orientation, long term focus, relationship building, multiple issues exist; problem solving aimed at creating joint value or maximizing joint outcomes or utility, expand the pie, collaborate and innovate

Distributive approach: compromise across issues, gain for one = loss for other

Integrative approach: gain for one = relatively small loss for other (complementary)

Congruent approach: want the same thing

Overconfidence: leads us to behave stubbornly

Fixed-pie bias: assumption that interests must be opposite, leads away from mutually beneficial trade offs

Asymmetrical information: sellers usually have better information, so buys often overbid