A633.1.2.RB_BorutyAlan_Leadership Gap

Leadership Gap

For what it is worth, I agree with Obolensky.  Business leaders are under more scrutiny than ever.  I believe there are a couple of reasons for this phenomenon.  I have always said that leaders at every level operate in a fishbowl.  Within an organization, leaders are watched by their subordinates and their leaders as well.  Subordinates want to know if you practice what you preach.  The leaders want to know if you are doing the right things for your people and for your organization, how you interact with peers, and how you react in pressure situations.  Subordinates want to know if you are the real deal or if you are all talk.  Leaders are sizing you up as well.  They want to know if you are getting things done or spinning your wheels…they are looking for potential.  This scrutiny is internal and has always been present.  The leader is earning respect and credibility, or not.  If the leader fails the fishbowl test, it is extremely difficult to reverse the effects.  This scrutiny comes from within the organization by people that know you.  You may get a second chance to prove yourself and you may not.  External scrutiny is more critical.

Now to the questions Obolensky asked to begin chapter one.

Has my own attitude to leaders changed in my life, and if so how?

Of course it has.  As a kid, I was told I was a natural leader.  I did not know what that meant and no one that ever said it took the time to elaborate.  So I ignored it, but in the back of my mind I really wanted to understand it.  I was just a kid that liked to play baseball, no different than any of my friends.  In grade school I learned about people that were referred to as leaders, most of them were past presidents.  Still no one explained what a leader is.  There were not any classes that taught it and when I asked I got looks as if I should already know.  Most of the time the response, if I got one at all, was simply more names of people (most of them dead) that were considered to be great leaders.  Good to know, but not what I was looking for.  In high school, I became aware that there were things other than baseball that were worthy of my attention.  I began to formulate my own opinion.  Leaders were outgoing, opinionated, vocal, focused on an important cause, and intelligent.  I was none of those things.  The natural leader label made less sense than ever.  My opinion, right or wrong, was that leader was a title that I could not achieve, nor did I want to…I was not that kind of person.  I joined the Air Force at age twenty and immediately learned that leaders were not very nice and if one of them wanted to talk to me, I had done something wrong.  I only started to acquire an understanding of leadership after I was assigned my first trainee.  It has been a passion ever since.

 If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by a younger generation, is there a changing trend?  If so, what is it?

My grandparents lived through two world wars, the great depression, and Korea.  Leaders brought them through those events and leaders provided them with the vast majority of the information they got.  The people of my grandparents’ generation revered and trusted their leaders.  They had faith that leaders acted in the best interest of the people they served.  Information contrary to that was simply not available to them.  My parents were, of course, raised by their parents and rarely questioned authority.  They were young but they watched the country unite when we entered World War II.  Everyone that was not fighting was supporting the effort in one way or another.  They trusted that their leaders were informed, capable, and making the right decisions for the right reasons.  They also saw the rebuilding of our nation after the war ended.  Leaders had guided them through hard times into relative prosperity.  Information was more available but it was generally inert.  My generation got to watch Vietnam on television.  We saw people protesting against the actions and decisions of our leaders.  People were not lined up to join the effort; they were condemning it.  Information was available and much of it was opinionated.  Our nation was dividing, the decisions of our leaders were questioned and defiantly opposed.  Information was still slow and some of it censored, but footage from the war fueled the opposition.  Leadership behavior was in the news and being questioned.  I believe my generation was the point where blind trust that leaders were above reproach began to turn to questions of trustworthiness.  All of this is my opinion based on my observations and what little understanding I have on human behavior.  

Since the days of my grandparents, leadership philosophy, structure, and style remained the same.  The hierarchical, top-down organization still the norm.  Nothing had challenged it enough to consider any other options.  Advancements in technology began to accelerate in the 1970s and has not slowed since.  These rapid advances in technology changed everything.  The generation of my children have never known a day without rapidly changing technology.  Information has always been at their fingertips.  They are comfortable in this environment and know how to use it.  My generation and certainly generations before mine still struggle to make sense of it.  In the meantime change continues and the younger generations change right along with it.  As a result, they are well informed, they have an opinion, and they expect their voice to be heard (Obolensky, 2014).  CEOs in hierarchically structured organizations were left behind.  Everything changed for them.  Their business was now more complex, uncertain, and unpredictable (Obolensky, 2014).  The context within which they lead changed into the complex and chaotic domains (Snowden & Boone, 2007).  Today, employees are better informed and have high expectations from their leader.  

I definitely see a trend.  In the days of my grandparents it was blind trust and absolute respect.  The trend moves downward until it reaches the younger generation where it becomes earn our trust and respect.   An upward trend over the same time frame could also be observed if we looked at the availability, accessibility, and accuracy of information to the general public.  Information is powerful.  Obolensky calls this trend the death of deference.  "We hold our leaders to account more now than we have done.  In the past we assumed they were more capable than us and we were therefore happy to follow.  However, with the fast pace of change..., the older generation has been left behind more than ever before" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 4). 

Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

It is true that there is more information, courses, consultants, and executive coaches available to the leader, but there are a few reasons that can account for the gap.  I am not sure the gap is in the quality of our leaders.  Before the world changed they were arguably some of the best.  The gap, in my opinion, lies in the leader's ability or desire to completely change their views on leadership.  For many leaders this is difficult, at best, regardless of the information available to support such a change.  But the fact is what used to work no longer does. The environmental context for leadership has changed to the point that hierarchical leadership in some industries is ineffective if not obsolete.  In those cases a dynamic and sustainable way to stay ahead must be developed.  Those leaders will have to adapt or they will fail (Reeves & Deimler, 2011).  Obolensky (2014) tells us that polyarchy and Complex Adaptive Leadership is the way forward.  There is a large learning curve in the transition to a polyarchic leadership philosophy.  Given the pace and volume of change that has taken place and the fact that there is no end in sight, it is not inconceivable that leaders simply cannot see a way forward and are stuck.  Simply stated it is more difficult to lead today than it ever has been (Obolensky, 2014).  So in my mind the gap is a leader adaptability issue rather than a leader quality issue.  How do we close the gap is not an easy answer.  While the environment seems to call for a change to polyarchy, oligarchy is still common.  If the leaders are to be retained, hands on, face-to-face training is necessary and it should begin by getting an understanding of: 1) the context both globally and locally driving leadership 2) the limitations of oligarchy as it applies currently and 3) the dynamics of anarchy as it applies within chaos and complexity and how useful non-deterministic leadership can be in those contexts (Oboloensky, 2014).

~Pete

References

Obolenski, N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty, (2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan PublishingLimited.

Reeves, M., & Deimler, M. (2011). Adaptability: The New Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Review, 89(7/8), 134-141.

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.

A632.5.5.RB_BorutyAlan_Protected Values in Decision Making

Protected Values in Decision Making

In a previous blog entry (Link to Blog) on protected values, I mentioned that I did not have any protected values.  This is true, I do not hold values that I consider absolute or completely shielded from trade-off.  Reality tells me that while I have values that are important to me, circumstances could force me to-trade off.  For example, if I held a protected value to preserve ancient forests and another to find cures for childhood diseases and research proved that a specific compound found only in the roots of the trees found only in the ancient forests could be used to safely kill cancer cells in children with Leukemia, I would get my chainsaw.  An obvious example (to me), but it makes my point.  So, I do not claim protected values because the words never and always, as they relate to time, are synonymous and they are exactly equal to the amount of time required to verify all of the circumstances included in under no circumstance. 

People that hold protected values are certain that their beliefs are just and critical and more important than any other.  Their values should not be traded off or take a back seat to any other value for any reason (Hoch, et al., 2001).  The obvious problem in my eyes is that the people protecting every other value feel and act the same way.  These intelligent, like-minded, passionate people cannot see that other values protected by other intelligent, like-minded, passionate people are equally important.  So, each group digs in and stands rigid in their demand for infinite resources and support for their infinitely important cause.  This results in none of them actually getting what they need now to further their cause.  In my opinion, this is a textbook illustration of irrational behavior.  When budgets are planned and policy is written, there is no way to distinguish priorities.  “These protected values are useful because they ensure that values will be kept in mind in every decision, but they are harmful to policy makers and managers because they make trade-offs impossible and conflicts between competing absolute values impossible to resolve” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 255). 

I am not saying they are wrong; I am saying they are right.  Every one of them is right.  Their methods are wrong.  Using this method, each of them can expect the absolute minimum in funding and support each year allowing them to do less than if they would explore scenarios where trade-offs are possible.  Experimental studies have shown that protected values are not as absolute and inviolable as the words indicate. In fact, “protected values appear to be labile and amenable to challenge” (Hoch, et al., 2001, p. 254).

In the context of protected values, Dan Gilbert’s presentation seemed to have a different purpose.  The message had a different meaning and the outcome was more powerful.  Instead of explaining how our inability to estimate the odds of an event occurring and the value of the event occurring causes us to make bad decisions, it was more about how we have developed the tendency to be near sighted in our thinking and decision making and the implications on our ability to estimate value.  We make errors in estimating the odds of success and we make errors in estimating the value of our own success, therefore, we cannot determine the estimated value of any option (Gilbert, 2005).  So, we know there is a problem that everyone needs to know about and we feel very strongly that this problem must be corrected.  We do not know how to fix it or if it can be fixed, but nothing is more important than fixing it.  In my mind, this scenario is a simplified (perhaps oversimplified) description of how protected values come to exist.  As long as the problem exists they place the highest value on fixing it for fear that people will forget about it if the value goes down.  They cannot see that reducing the value actually makes the problem solvable.

The errors that we make in estimating values are errors with comparisons.  When we compare things over time to estimate value we tend to follow only two rules: more is better than less and now is better than later (Gilbert, 2005).  We want more and we want it now and we are not patient at all.  According to Gilbert, it takes in the hundreds to thousands percent payout to buy our patience.  Instant gratification is our prize in the here and now.  When the future is important and we have to think and decide farsighted, we could be in trouble because we have defaulted to nearsighted and our ability to estimate value has not improved.  The future issues will only become more complicated and less solvable.

Dan Gilbert warns us that we are not good at estimating value.  We need it to know what we should do at any given time.  We are in control of our destiny; our fate is in our hands.  If we cease to exist it will be “because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasure” (Gilbert, 2005). 

It makes more sense to me now.  Protected values need to exist and need to be supported.  I believe that research needs to continue so we can understand the nature of protected values.  Current research is scant and contradictory making protected values difficult to manage, leaving issues unresolved, and  leaving an important field ignorant.

References:

Gilbert, Dan (2005). Why we make bad decisions: TEDTalks. Retrieved from:  http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness (Links to an external site.)

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., &  Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

A632.9.3.RB_BorutyAlan_ Role of Emotion in Decision Making

Role of Emotion in Decision Making

Brain Research at Stanford: Decision Making

Video Summary

According to Professor Baba Shiv emotions play a crucial role in the decision making process allowing us to resolve decision conflict and reliably choose a course of action that will result in one emerging from the decision making process confident in and convicted to the decision (Shiv, 2011). 

The resultant decision confidence is the level of belief that you have made the right decision.  The greater your decision confidence, the more it shows in your body language Others pick up on your confidence and also grow confident that you have the right course of action  because “confidence is contagious” (Shiv, 2011). 

Decision confidence also allows others to experience the passion you have for the course of action and believe it as well because “passion is persuasive” (Shiv, 2011).

The confidence you emerge from the decision making process with has a huge impact on the extracted utility you get from the experience in terms of commitment, effort, motivation, and engagement (Shiv, 2011).

An example of a situation in which I was not confident occurred while I was in the Air Force.  The commander was reviewing the files of Airmen in the squadron who were eligible for re-enlistment.  He was troubled by one Airman’s file and asked me to look it over and give him my opinion.  He gave me a day to review it, but needed to get it turned in.  I glanced at it and immediately understood why the commander was troubled.  On the form the supervisor indicated that he recommends the Airman for reenlistment, but in the file the same supervisor had documented and filed around a dozen negative incidents over the previous two years the most recent was filed about six weeks prior to this tis review.  I assumed the supervisor made a mistake.  When I read the file, I decided that the airman should be denied reenlistment he was averaging one incident every two months or so.  I was confident that the record alone justified denial, but I did not have any background information and I wanted to talk to the supervisor.  The supervisor was not there.  I talked to the flight chief and asked him to bring a few people to the conference room the following morning.  I spoke to coworkers, the trainer, the supervisor, and the flight chief.  None of them had anything bad to say about the Airman.  I held the flight chief and the supervisor back and shared my opinion and my immediate reaction the file.  I also explained that I believed we were missing something because the supervisor is writing and not talking.  Writing had not corrected the behavior problem.  What was next?  They remained firm that other than minor issues this was an Airman we needed to keep.  I told both that of them that I would follow their opinion against what I believed to be right and asked them to leave.  I took the record back to the commander explained everything that happened.  He agreed with me for what it was worth. 

A few months later, the Airman was pulled over for a possible DUI.  When the police searched his vehicle they arrested him for DUI and possession of multiple illegal drugs.  An Airman’s life ruined and we completely missed it

I was curious but trying to stay open minded when I reviewed the file.  When I finished I had a couple of questions but I was confident that I had made the right decision.  Shiv states that emotion in decision making allows us to resolve decision conflict, reliably take a course of action and emerge from the decision confidently (Shiv, 2011).I was not happy about the decision, I could defend it and justify it but the decision to deny someone the opportunity to reenlist is a somber, reflective time.  The next morning everything I thought I knew about this Airman was wrong.  Now, overnight, an airman that gets a filed Letter of Counseling every two months is Airman of the Quarter material.  I was told the letters were just to get his attention.  Everyone I spoke to told me the same thing.  He’s a good guy we need to keep him in.  At this point, I was at a loss for words and did not care to hear any more of theirs.  In seconds, I went from disappointed to confused to questioning my own judgement to angry…no, I was mad.  I was forced to do the wrong thing for the right reason.  That is where I got stuck.  I briefly spoke with the supervisor and flight chief.  I gave myself a minute and took the file back to the commander.

A decision that better fits Shiv’s concept in terms of confidence happened when I was deployed for a five-day exercise as the production superintendent.  During the briefings that kicked off the exercise, the supervisor of flying (SOF) and I were planning how we would communicate, discussing our expectations, and generally looking for the best way to conduct operations during the exercise.  The briefer was discussing the mission profile and aircraft configuration and I thought it was odd that we had one ten-hour orbit assigned but the aircraft were configured with line 1 and line 2 mission capable at crew show and a mission ready spare.  Mission ready is significant.  It is an alert configuration that requires additional resources to maintain.  It struck me as overkill for the scenario we were flying.  So, I asked the SOF what he knew about it.  He had not heard anything either.  I noticed a few more maintainers than we normally brought on a trip like this.  He told me that he learned that there was an additional full crew here for operations.  I told him it looked like they were planning to fly two orbits.  They had the resources to have all three aircraft in the air at the same time.  The SOF and I decided that we would hold the spare until forced to use it and keep people available just in case.  Of course the situation would dictate our reaction but our going in was do not release the spare and be prepared to launch the spare as a second orbit.  The first day tested our theory when the second line experienced a hydraulic leak that would delay take off by an hour.  The aircraft commander happened to be the SOF’s squadron commander.  He immediately wanted to step to the spare.  The SOF is supposed to disregard real life and see him as just a pilot but he was caught off guard and he was intimidated.  I responded that there were options and burning the spare was premature.  I did not know how it came out but I hoped it sounded firm and authoritative.  I was nervous until I heard his response which was we need to take it to relieve the airborne crew on time.  He was trying to convince me to do it maybe even trying to bully me a little.  I grew more confident as I told him there was no requirement to relieve the crew at a certain time, only to cover the orbit.  Extending the crew could buy us hours.  Then he definitely tried to bully and intimidate me.  He said that I obviously do not know how important the sortie was he would take the spare on his own.  This statement made me instantly angry, but I took a breath and assured him that I did know how important his line was.  The SOF and I discussed it in detail.  There is enough crew duty day for the airborne crew to fly the entire orbit if needed.  So the second line could cancel without issue.  I gained control at that point.  I said none of that would be necessary because we had the part and people and I was still confident we would meet or beat our estimate.  Then I left and walked around the aircraft explaining the sense of urgency we needed when power came on.  He was not happy that I left, but I knew we had gone far enough that he would not push the issue further when they applied power to the aircraft and everyone got back to work.  He gave me until the estimated completion to be ready to go or they would step.  I agreed to continue the discussion at that time.  Not long after that the spare was launched by exercise input.  I was elated.  I am sure it was impossible to hide it although I tried.  I did not want to appear like bad sport but I was thinking I told you so.  The spare took off 4 minutes earlier than he did.

This banter back and forth was not me making a decision.  It was me protecting a decision the SOF I and I made the night before.  The commander could have made it a lot harder on me, he leveled off, and I was glad.  I was determined not to release the spare until directed to do so by the deployment commander.  I would have defended this position defiantly, but he did not take it there.

I was extremely confident the decision was right the minute we made it.  I was also confident that it would be a decision we would have to protect.  We logically sorted through the information we could see and it pointed to something we both understood.  I was excited and was ready to get things rolling.

When the aircraft commander demanded the spare, I felt a little nervous, but when the SOF got intimidated my confidence wavered.  My confidence came back quickly because I was sure now the SOF and I got it right.  I was actually enjoying the conversation.  As I gained confidence, I enjoyed myself more.  I was very comfortable in the scenario and my attitude became one of I am in control.  This is most likely the point that Professor Shiv described as confidence giving rise to passion took place.  Everything felt right and I had the energy to go on forever (Shiv, 2011).  Unlike the first example, I did not feel like emotions controlled the process.  In fact, I felt they enhanced the process. 

References:

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Shiv, B. (2011)Brain research at Stanford: Decision making. Stanford Graduate School of Business, Reunion 2011. Retrieved from:  https://erau.instructure.com/courses/57522/assignments/905751?module_item_id=2904529

A632.8.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Cynefin Framework Reflection

Cynefin Framework Reflection

The Cynefin model has 5 domains or contexts: simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disorder.  Disorder is where you are when you do not know what space you are in.  The normal response is to act according to your preferred method of action.  There is no decision model in this context, but the danger if you react to a situation based on your preferred method and it does not match the context of your action, you will most likely fail or even cause more harm (Snowden, 2010).

In the simple domain there is an obvious cause and effect that is understood by everyone and there is one right answer.  The model to facilitate decision-making is sense, categorize, respond.  Applying best practice is appropriate (Snowden, 2010).

Up until recently, water leaks at my sister’s house were a very common occurrence.  The piping that was originally installed overtime became brittle and weak.  The first leak flooded the place because the shut off at the house would not close.  That time I repaired five different leaks and replaced the shut off valve at the house.  I showed my sister and her daughter where the valve was and how to close it.  After the first repair I was under that house repairing leaks nearly once a week.  But, I never had to work under it in flood conditions again.  Unlike me, my sister’s hearing is excellent.  She would call and tell me she heard a leak and ask me if I would fix it.  She was right every time.

When I installed the shutoff valve and took the time to show them where the valve is, how to use it, and when to use it, I created a task for them that falls perfectly in the simple domain.  She hears water running (senses) she checks in the house to see if there is water running. If she does not find water running inside the house, she determines that it is a leak (categorize).  And immediately closes the shut off valve which stops the leak until I can get there to fix it (respond).  There is no ambiguity, cause equals effect, and repeating the pattern consistently produced the same result.  I replaced all of the lines a few weeks later and she has not had a leak, but if one does spring up, she will still know exactly what to do and it will produce the same results (Snowden, 2010). 

In the complicated domain, there is a relationship between cause and effect, but it is not easy for everyone to identify and it is possible that more than one right answer exists.  These issues require expert analysis.  It may be necessary to bring in experts.  The model to facilitate decision-making is sense, analyze, respond.  The use of good practice is appropriate (Snowden, 2010).

Not too long ago, I experienced an outage on my home phone.  I had seen telephone repairmen in the neighborhood all day, so I assumed they were working on the system and they would restore service by the end of the day.  When that did not happen, I checked with my neighbors.  They all had service and had not been without all day (sensed).  Then I assumed that I had somehow damaged the lines or an animal had chewed through the line.  I found that the line was buried over two feet deep and it was encased all the way to their side of the box.  I opened my side of the box, but did not see anything out of the ordinary.  At this point I had gathered up enough information to call the issue complicated.  I also knew that I still had the problem, but I had no idea what was causing it or how to fix it.  The extent of my analysis told me that I needed the experts to make any further progress (analyze).  Having exhausted my resources and capability, I called the phone company and put in a service request (respond) (Snowden, 2010).  They were at my house the next day.  I told them what I had done and found.  I also mentioned seeing one of their repair vehicles in the neighborhood the day I lost service.  They were certain that it was on my side and spent a few hours trying to find my problem.  Finally, they did what I could not do.  They opened their side of the box and found their line dead.  There is a panel box (not sure what it is called) just down the street.  On the day I lost service, a technician was removing service to a different house.  In doing so, he cut one of my lines.  He either cut the wrong line and forgot to reinstall it or broke it without realizing it when he was locating the one he needed to remove.  It does not matter, those things happen and I am certain it was not done purposely.  However as a technician, you always look at the last place people worked before the problem occurred.  It would have saved the phone company a half day of labor.  They found the problem within minutes and had it repaired in less than an hour. 

The cause and effect relationship became clear when they found the problem.  I feel that when I turned the problem over to the experts, my complicated problem should have become their simple problem.  They should have been able to use best practice from the simple domain.  That, of course, is just my opinion.

The complex domain is unpredictable and there is no apparent cause.  There are no apparent right answers.  Creative and innovative approaches are necessary; dissent and diversity are helpful (Snowden, 2010).  The decision model is probe, sense, respond (Snowden, 2010)..

I had just upgraded to the 5-skill level…and to be perfectly honest I had been signed off on a number of things I had not done yet.  Being a 5-level meant I could work on the system on my own.  I was a little nervous, but I had a safety net of qualified people I could question when necessary.  Two weeks later I was in a C-141 on my way to Saudi Arabia where I would be one of two Radar technicians.  There would be a 7-level on day shift and me on night shift.  My safety net was gone.  But I went in with my head up and a positive attitude.  Things went well for the first week.  Then an aircraft had to abort its mission because the main Radar computer called the RDC would simply turn off about every ten minutes or so, but it was very intermittent.  Without the RDC, nothing works.  The entire time it failed, it only generated a failure message one time.  The message indicated a power transient occurred.  So this issue started in the complicated domain because I had an idea what was causing the problem and I thought I knew how I would fix it.  On the aircraft I began taking power measurements.  The input to the cabinet goes through a filter on top of the cabinet.  I measured input and output of the filter and voltage and frequency were perfect and they were stable (probe).  The system failed but the readings did not fluctuate at all.  The same was true for every other power supply internal to the cabinet.  I continued for a few hours without finding a single problem from the front of the cabinet (probe).  It was time to access the backplane.  At that time, I had only been in the backplane once, in a class.  There are about 40,000 pins and 60 to 75,000 thirty gauge wires connecting all of the signals in the RDC to their location.  The way it is laid out, there is a real danger of shorting wires and/or breaking wires.  I really did not want to go in that night, but I had no choice.  When I opened the backplane, the failure went away, completely.  When I closed the door, it started failing again (probe).  In the cabinet there is a riser plate.  When I closed the door, the riser lifted the RDC chassis about a half an inch.  It dropped it by that much when I opened it.  It was consistent.  I had not repaired anything, in fact, I made it a little more confusing (sense).  But I could make the problem go away.  I spoke with the production superintendent and explained that if I got into the backplane the problem would probably get worse before it got better.  We had three aircraft and were responsible for airborne coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Taking it down to two aircraft is not sustainable.  He understood and was good with the creative fix even if temporary.  The next morning we got approval to modify the cabinet (respond).  Removing the riser worked.  It did not fail again.

When the aircraft returned, the maintenance commander sat the aircraft down for maintenance.  I and another military Radar technician and two Westinghouse engineers were picked to work the problem.  We were to split up and work the aircraft around the clock until we fixed it.  That took three weeks.  After putting the riser back in the cabinet the failure returned.  We searched signal by signal for over two weeks and got nowhere.  We borrowed a piece of equipment from the mission computing shop.  It allowed us to probe 24 signals at the same time (probe).  Then we finally saw it.  The signal that protects the equipment for over current/voltage conditions changed state very quickly and very slightly, but it was enough to shut the RDC down.  Every input to that signal looked perfect except from the input filter.  It did not look bad it just was not as crisp as the others.  When we looked at it with a spectrum analyzer it was clear (sense).  The signal was noisy, but every few minutes the noise level spiked and the protective signal saw it as out of tolerance and shut the system down (sense).  Replacing the filter on top of the cabinet corrected the problem (respond).  I had never replaced one of those filters before and I never did again.

This context of this problem was complex we probed for weeks hoping to see anything emerge that we could follow.  It finally happened, but not until we employed the logic analyzer which allowed us to see relationships it was a first for radar and as a result we added it to our required equipment documents and added technical order procedures to use it.  Once we saw the protect signal change, we began to sense the problem was not a power problem, but noise on the riding on the power signal.  This was also the first time I had ever used a spectrum analyzer on power signals, but it worked and we responded by replacing the filter. 

The chaotic domain poses unique problems.  There is no clear cause and effect relationship.  There is no time to think and many decisions have to be made immediately.  The situation is highly stressful and turbulent.  It is pointless to look for the right answer instead you must act immediately to establish order.  The model to facilitate decision-making is act, sense, respond (Snowden, 2010).

This example affected me profoundly, but I was not there.  I will share the actions a friend of mine took to establish order in a chaotic situation.  My friends name is Craig, He was a Senior Master Sergeant at the time. 

On Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska at 0745 on September 22, 1995, Aircraft 77-0354 ingested several Canada geese into the number 1 and 2 engines on the left wing just after rotation.  The number 2 engine was completely destroyed and the number 1 engine was badly damaged and operating at 50 percent or less and was experiencing repeated compressor stalls.  The aircraft reached 250 feet, but it could not produce enough lift on the left side and was right wing high.  Approximately 2 minutes after take-off roll the aircraft crashed into a heavily wooded area nose first and right-wing high.  The aircraft came apart, exploded, and burned.  All twenty four crew members including two Canadian nationals perished.  All were brothers, three were good friends.  Maintenance personnel watched helplessly as the aircraft they just launched exploded into a fireball less than a mile away (FSF, 1996). 

My friend Craig was on duty, but he was not the production superintendent that morning.  He of course heard the radio traffic and the explosion.  He took immediate control.  He grabbed two Master Sergeants (act).  One he directed to collect all of the aircraft records and bring them to his office then have the planners lock down all maintenance software and automated systems (act).  The other Master Sergeant was to get the training records for every person and lock them in his office.  Then Craig went outside and directed the production superintendent to shut down all flight line maintenance and bring everyone inside the building (act).  Back inside Craig initiated a full recall of all personnel (act).  He also called the hospital and requested urinalysis support for the entire maintenance squadron (act).  He then called and requested Chaplain Support (act).  .  He found the Crew Chief for the aircraft and had a short, private conversation with him (act).  Then he talked to the entire group.  He explained all of his actions and why each one was necessary.  (sense).  He told everyone not to talk about the accident to anyone except Chaplains and spouses.  Until the investigation is complete everything is speculation.  He encouraged them to talk to each other and discouraged anyone from blaming themselves (respond).  The commander came in with a chaplain and Craig retired to his office where I assume he had to let things soak in (Brian, Eric, & Craig, 1995).(respond)

This topic is still difficult to discuss.  Twenty four Airmen died that day.  They were doing something they genuinely believed in.  Many lessons were learned that day, lessons that changed people forever.  I am one of those people.  The situation immediately after the crash was chaotic.  People were in shock, disbelief, and denial.  Some were angry. The Dedicated Crew Chief was sobbing.  Craig took action.  He said he did because he did not know what else to do.  He was upset that he did not know where to find the emergency action checklist.  I never saw their checklist, but I do not think he missed too much.  Craig’s actions from the beginning helped ensure the crash investigation team had current information when they needed it. He also snapped his Airmen out of it so to speak.  He had established order by the time the commander came in.  I believe he got them into the complex domain by the time the commander arrived.  

Brian, Eric, and Craig were asked and agreed to go out to the crash site to search for aircraft pieces and debris…none of them will discuss that experience.

References:

Snowden, D. J., (2010). The Cynefin Framework. YouTube. Accessed 2017 February 28. Retrieved from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8 (Links to an external site.)

Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) Accident Prevention, Volume 53, Number11, November 1996. Retrieved from: https://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_nov96.pdf

Conversations with Brian, Eric, & Craig, (1995).  True to the best of my memory.

A632.8.3.RB_BorityAlan_Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Studying the Cynefin framework has helped me to visualize and better understand processes I have been studying and practicing for over 30 years now.  Back then, the Air Force had embraced ‘Situational Leadership’ and pushed it at every opportunity.  It made sense at a conceptual level…people are different so a good leader should adjust his leadership style accordingly.  The concept if adjusted a little has a variety of applications.  Things are different so treat them differently.  Not all problems are equal nor is the process by which they are solved.  As a radar technician, I learned about simple, complicated, and complex systems and the different approaches to troubleshooting those systems.  I responded to changing contexts and I was able to make decisions in those contexts.  I suppose I was driven by intuition or necessity and I probably stumbled more often than I soared.  I did not think about it; I did what I thought was expected and it worked most of the time.  Now the Cynefin framework tells me that decision making is not a ‘one size fits all’ process (Snowden, 2010).  It follows.  It makes sense to me.  I believe it. 

These experiences are probably the reason I was immediately impressed by the Cynefin framework.  The Cynefin framework is a valuable and powerful tool that will improve the accuracy, timeliness, and breadth of my decisions.  The framework gives me the information I need to assess the context of the issue.  It contains specific characteristics to confirm the context assessment as well as further define the issue, and it provides a decision model for each context to apply to the issue to come to the right decision.  It is a sense-making model (Snowden, 2010).  It uses your ambiguous data and helps you determine the prevailing operative context so you can make context appropriate choices (Snowden & Boone, 2007).  This helps you avoid the mistake of applying the wrong action to the prevailing context which will fail, or worse (Vasilescu. 2011).  Getting it right the first time definitely benefits my decision-making.

“Effective leaders learn to shift their decision-making styles to match changing business environments….By correctly identifying the governing context, staying aware of danger signals, and avoiding inappropriate reactions, mangers can lead effectively in a variety of situations” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 12).  I recall working a complex failure of the radar system.  I was the senior technician working with three other technicians.  The problem we were sent to work was causing the transmitter to shut down, but the fault code was generic and did not point to a cause.  I suspected we were troubleshooting a symptom and the actual fault was in a different system which caused the transmitter to shut down.  I believed there was only one failure, but it could be caused by any number of systems tied to the transmitter.  I had just explained my theory to the other technicians and we decided to change course and look at a group of circuits that provided input to the transmitter when a different fault occurred.  I immediately knew what the problem was.  Two of the other technicians recognized the failure as well but the third was a relatively new trainee.  It was a simple problem.  The fault produced an accurate fault message that identified the problem and explained exactly what to do.  The dielectric gas for the transmitter was low.  I asked one of the technicians to walk through the process with the trainee and correct the problem.  While he was training, I went back to prioritizing the circuits we would look at from most likely to least likely.  When the trainer and trainee returned and verified the repair, I asked both of them a few questions to make sure they covered everything and the trainee was comfortable with the training.  The context of the gas problem was simple and, once trained, the trainee could follow the procedure on his own and achieve the same result.  The other problem was complex.  We got lucky and found the fault in the second circuit we checked.  After repairing the system we were able to trace the signal and see how the fault was occurring, however, we were not able to determine why it generated the erroneous fault code.  The ability to shift contexts is important.  If I had not been able to shift contexts I would have missed a training opportunity.  Snowden states that, “Good leadership requires openness to change on an individual level.  Truly adept leaders will know not only how to identify the context they’re working in at any given time but also how to change their behavior and their decisions to match that context” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 11).  For example, shifting from a complicated context to a chaotic context or vice versa is a dramatic change.  Directive versus collaborative leadership styles are almost polar opposites.  One would also have to change their vocal tone, posture, and sense of urgency.  This is a drastic change at best, but imagine how effective a leader would be in either context without making the complete transformation.

Being able to make decisions in multiple contexts is sometimes necessary at home too.  Last summer I was making arrangements to rent a facility for my family to have Thanksgiving dinner together.  The context is simple: call, verify availability, and pay the deposit.  The lady had me on hold while she went to find her calendar.  I noticed my brother outside and went out to meet him.  He pointed to a large pine tree that had broken at the trunk in a storm the night before.  It was partially down and hung up in a tree branch.  It had taken the path directly over my storage building and stopped just a few feet before taking out the main power lines to the property.  I was still on hold so I asked my brother to call the power company.  They dispatched a truck immediately.  This issue was complicated.  I could clearly see the problem and knew there were several options to resolve the problem, but I did not know how to fix it without causing further damage (French, 2013).  The lady was back on the line again and telling me she finally found the calendar in the back seat of her truck but she did not know how it got there.  I live in a very small town.  She and I were still talking when a tree removal truck stopped in front of the house.  I was trying to talk to both at the same time, but I was not doing it very well.  The tree removal crew agreed to wait.  She and I finished our business with a date booked.  I could bring the deposit anytime and just drop it off at the café.  Again, I live in a small town.  The crew had already determined that the tree was threatening lines that are my responsibility, therefore they would not remove it.  However they would send a crew out to drop the lines so I could remove it.  They would also reinstall the lines after the tree was clear.  Nothing I said or offered changed their mind.  They would not be responsible for destroying my storage building.  And they left.  My brother and I spent an hour or so looking it over and agreed on a plan that could work.  So we decided to do it.  Booking the banquet room was a simple context.  It was straightforward and understood even if it did take a long time to get it done.  The tree was a complicated context even though bringing in the experts did not work out.  There were several options to solve the problem.  Collaborative thinking brought out the option we chose.  The plan was successful; we removed it without damaging my building or the power lines.

I have taken a critical look at the Cynefin framework.  I think I understand it.  I do not understand what is meant by how can the Cynefin framework provide an improved context for decision making.  The contexts are set in the framework, constants if you will.  They are what they are.  Contexts cannot be improved without changing them; therefor, they would not be improved they would be different.  If the contexts are different the framework would also be different.  I do not intend to be difficult or dodge the question.  The contexts are the Cynefin Framework: Simple (now called Obvious), Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, and Disorder.  The name of the context can be changed, and they have been over the years, but the contexts have always been the same.

~Pete

References:

French, S. (2013). Cynefin, statistics and decision analysis. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(4), 547-561. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1057/jors.2012.23

Snowden, D. J., (2010). The Cynefin Framework. YouTube. Accessed 2017 February 28. Retrieved from:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8 (Links to an external site.)

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.

Vasilescu, C, (2011, December). Strategic decision making using sense making models: The Cynefin Framework. Paper presented at the Sixth International Scientific Conference on Defense Resorces Management in the 21st Century, Brasov, Romania. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1127283106?accountid=27203

A632.5.4.RB_BorutyAlan - How Protected are Your Protected Values

How Protected are Your Protected Values

I literally spent hours thinking through the subject of protected values.  Then I spent a couple more hours trying to identify my protected values.  I was not able to identify any.  I do not know if not having them is good or not, but it puts me in a bit of a dilemma.  The prompt for this lesson clearly assumes that I have at least three of them.  I think I will research the subject further and discuss what I learn. 

People who have protected values consider them to be absolute and inviolable (Hoch, et al., 2001).  I believe that absolutes like always, never, or under any circumstances, etc. will make you a liar or hypocrite eventually.  Baron & Spranca, make the statement that protected values are typically impossible for individuals to satisfy (Baron & Spranca, 1997, p. 1).  I have values that are important to me.  I do not believe in the senseless loss of human life, yet I spent 24 years in the military prepared to cause such loss, if necessary.  I traded off to defend the freedoms and way of life we enjoy in our country.  I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the beauty and grandeur of the world we live in, so I do not litter; however, I do not recycle.  I carefully consider the options before knowingly making a choice that contradicts those values.  Values are not traded off on a whim, but the possibility always exists that conflicting values will force a trade-off decision.  Human beings are all different in thought and action, but are all entitled to their opinion.  Controversial as it may seem, the minority should be heard but not allowed to negate the opinions of the majority.

Protected values create problems for policy makers in the government who try to identify at what point trade-offs occur.  People with protected values make that determination difficult, if not impossible.  People are emotionally tied to their protected values and when asked to place monetary values to those values, some will answer no amount of money can justify destroying forests.  This infinite value makes the resulting analysis infinite.  This renders all the data in the analysis useless.  Some of these same people will purchase wooden furniture, use paper, and other wood products to make their lives more comfortable.  I believe when the analysis is being done, extreme ratings should be noted but not calculated.  This way the large majority of the data are considered.  They understand that commitment to protected values could make overall consequences worse in some sense.  “Rather than simply rejecting their competing, utilitarian intuitions, they deny that this is needed.  Perhaps this is true more generally of commitment to deontological rules, absolute or not” (Baron & Spranca, 1997, p. 13).

The results of the 1997 Baron & Spranca study was protected values are insensitive to quantity.  Less clear was absoluteness.  “The strong relation between Absoluteness and Denial protected-value score was computed for each subject suggests that people want to have their non-utilitarian cake and eat it too” (Baron & Spranca, 1997, p. 13). 

Ilana Ritov & Jonathan Baron did a study called ‘Protected Values and Omission Bias’ in 1999 with the primary objective to test omission bias in protected values.  People that have protected values are concerned with actions but not omission.  Ritov & Baron define omission bias as “the tendency to be less concerned with harms caused by omission than with identical harms caused by action’ (Ritov & Baron, 1999, p. 80).  The results in three experiments supported their hypothesis, omission bias is stronger for protected values.

Carmen Tanner & Douglas, L. Medin conducted research on protected values in 2004.  Their experiments looked at three questions: (Tanner & Medin, 2004, p. 6)

 (1) How strongly are protected values related to acts versus omissions and moral prohibitions versus moral obligations?

 (2) Is the prevalence of sobligation versus prohibition and act versus omission bias sensitive to negative/positive framing?

(3) Do people holding PVs respond differently to framing manipulations?

The Tanner & Medin study produced significantly different results than was widely accepted.  Instead of replicating previous studies showing omission bias, research suggests that protected values are associated with commitment to action, not just prohibitions.  Additionally, studies have consistently found people will more likely express moral values through active behavior versus inaction (Tanner & Medin, 2004).

Judgement and decision-making research notes that protected values being linked to omission bias may have been overgeneralized which could have caused action effects to be ignored in decision-making (Tanner & Medin, 2004).  

In this study there were two differences in what has been the norm for the field.  In past studies choices were asymmetrical in design.  Tanner and Medin created their choices symmetrically.  Secondly, the participants were specifically asked to assume the role of a decision-maker. 

There were two significant findings in the Tanner & Medin study.  First, “people with protected values were more likely to prefer acts than omissions.  In addition, protected values were more closely associated with a sense of obligation to act rather than prohibitions against action (participant justifications also support this claim)” (Tanner & Medin, 2004, p. 13).  The second finding was “that participants with strong protected values did not show framing effects” (Tanner & Medin, 2004, p. 14).  

I believe that there is agreement in the scholarly community that protected values exist.  All the research has been accomplished by just a couple of researchers whose work is contradictory.  The library of work is minimal, dated, and conflicting.  Perhaps Tanner and Baron could have collaborated on a study instead of arguing conflicting points of view.  Such a collaboration may have produced the true nature of protected values.  As it is, Baron is retired and Tanner is working other research interests.  In my limited investigation, it does not look like other researchers have picked up the torch to continue the work.  If I have misspoken, I offer my apologies and express my excitement.  I think this is important research on a subject that we need to understand.  While it is true that I have not identified any ‘protected values’ myself, I would like to understand more about them.  If we understood what motivates each other, incidents like the North Dakota Access Pipeline may not have become the disaster it turned in to.  I am not picking sides but I must say there had to be a better way.  Understanding and relating to one another is a good start.

References:

Baron, J., & Spranca, M., (1997). Protected Values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 70(1), 1–16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2690

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., &  Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Ritov, I., & Baron, J., (1999).Protected values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 79-94. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2839

Tanner, C., & Medin,D. L., (2004). Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 185-191. doi:10.3758/BF03206481