Framing Traps
Hoch, Kunreuther,
& Gunther, tell us that “frames influence our thinking by simplifying
issues” (2001, p.137). But, influence is
not always positive. Framing can help us
see things in a different light, but it also narrows our view placing other
considerations in the dark. If framing
your thinking on the best travel option for a planned vacation abroad and deep
rooted beliefs tell you flying is unsafe, you may want to plan a cruise. Given the same scenario with the same
information and end result, your frame can cause you to choose one clearly over
the other. This is called establishing yardsticks
or reference points. You will not choose
an option that even appears to violate your yardstick. The result was exactly the same. Your yardstick distorted your thinking and made
one choice the obvious best option to choose.
These distortions in thinking can be invisible to you thereby making
your decisions less objective, perhaps even wrong (Hoch et al., 2001).
Frame blindness is when decision makers are unaware of how
framing influences their thinking and ultimately their decisions. Frame blindness is not normally an intentional
error. Most offenders are completely
unaware and are surprised when their decision causes problems. Regardless, frame blindness can have serious effects
on an organization. Internally, frame
blindness can cause miscommunication, conflict between departments, morale
problems, and accusations. Externally
blindness can be devastating. Making
blind decisions can result in career and company ending decisions. While anything is possible, I personally do
not see people effected by frame blindness making it to important decision-making
positions on the corporate ladder
.
Frame blindness is but one of the framing traps that decision
makers can fall into. Other framing
traps, are more likely to be seen in decision-making positions in business. Choosing frames is not a passive
activity. The price for choosing the
wrong frame can be very high (Hoch, et al., 2001). Unfortunately these traps are easy to fall into
if you fail to consider and choose frames correctly.
Framing traps can be avoided with some effort and
practice. Conducting a frame audit can
help avoid traps under the premise that if you cannot see your own frames, how
can you possibly manage them (Hoch, et al., 2001). The audit consists of: 1) Surfacing your
frames, 2) Understanding the frames of others, and 3) Appreciate Emerging frames.
I have been in frame traps more than I care to admit. I have never consciously thought about frames
until now. It was always a matter of
intuition and situational awareness. Whatever
it was it was automatic and it almost always kept me out of trouble. Back in the late 1980’s I was a new Technical
Sergeant (TSgt) in a new unit. I am not
sue if all new TSgts are cocky and over confident, but I was. I went into my new boss’s office to introduce
myself it was immediately awkward and uncomfortable. I told him I was excited to be there and
started talking about ways I felt I could help.
His response was to explain that he would decide what I could do. Within a minute, he was angry and I was
defensive. I worked out of that office
for almost a year before I moved overseas and we never communicated much better
than that first day. We constantly
mistook the others point. I failed to see
my frame or his. When I did see his
frame, I did not adjust to something more compatible. His frame was I am the boss and will not be
questioned. I was not willing to take on
a submissive frame or stroke his ego. He
was not willing to even tone it down so I could work with him. If I had on day one changed to a more
subordinate frame, he would have eventually stepped off his throne and
lightened up and we may have had a positive working relationship. Either of us could have adjusted frames, but
it was my responsibility to do that and I failed.
The second way to avoid framing traps is to ‘identify and change
inadequate frames’ (Hoch et al., 2001). I
do not believe I realized that I approached and communicated with some people differently
than others until late in my Air Force career and only then because I was told
that it was an expectation. And of
course, I did my best to comply. What I realized
was many of the frames I used professionally were no longer effective, if they
ever were. As the “group Chief”, I decided
to schedule time each week to manage by walking around. When I first started this habit, I used a frame
I used with friends. I was trying to
communicate with younger Airmen and hear their concerns, but was completely surprised
by their reactions. I got shock,
suspicion, a couple of formal reports, one salute, and zero conversations. After thinking about it for a while I
understood. I was the Chief, not their
friend. They expected me to be the Chief
and did not want to be my friend. I understood
that position and while being their friend was out, I did not have to be the
enemy. I made the adjustments I thought
I needed and my second MBWA tour went much better. My goal was to ‘overhear’ some of the issues
in their world and fix the ones I could.
I only made minor frame adjustments after that visit and only if I was
seeing people I had not met before. It
took a few visits out and around the organization for people to get comfortable
that I did not have an ulterior motive. Through
those visits I learned what was really happening in my organization. The Airmen told their issues simply,
truthfully, and accurately without embellishment or exaggeration. And I acted on every issue they presented to
me. Some were out of my control, some I
disagreed with, some were disapproved, and many I fixed. I provided specific feedback on every issue explaining
the disposition of the request. It was effective
and productive, and popular with the Airmen.
I got more things accomplished than I ever thought was wrong simply because
it was important enough for me to change my approach when talking with Airmen
in my group. Hoch calls my first meeting
and the reactions I got a frame misfit. “Poor
results, surprises (violations of expectations), inconsistencies, and difficulties
communicating with others are indications of a weak frame. Consider the possibility that your frame may
be wrong or, at least, not perfect!” (2001,
p.147)
Finally, framing traps can be avoided if you ‘master techniques
for reframing’ (Hoch, et al., 2001). I
cannot claim mastery in reframing although I have had to do a lot of reframing when
I moved back home. I was redefining who I
am and what is important to me…a work still in progress. I am in a new environment, my outlook on
living is changing, different things are becoming important to me and they are
replacing things that once were, and I am identifying what truly makes me
happy. All of these discoveries require reframing
in some way. I created frames where I had
none before. My hobbies fall into this
category. My relationship with my
siblings required me to update old frames.
They did not change as much as they matured. The slower paced, small town, everyone knows
your business environment forced me to reframe on a number of occasions. As I mentioned, frame work is still a work in
progress. Knowing what I know now, I suppose
it always will be.
Reference:
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making
decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment