A632.7.3.RB - Collaborative Decision Making

A632.7.3.RB_Manglona_Matthew-Napu_Collaborative Decision Making

To reflect on a situation where collaboration was essential to achieving a resolution was when I was faced with the decision of hiring an individual for my program. I was the President of the interviewing board along with a panel of four other individuals. Levine (2009) discussed that in order to to have a more productive and satisfying relationship is to begin all collaborations with an agreement for results in the beginning of the initial meet and greet within a group. (p.164) The five of us all knew each other prior to us being compiled together as a board for this new job position that was announced and we knew what the task, conditions, and standards were base off policy and operating procedures for the hiring process. The criteria for the interviewees were laid out in a check list and scoring sheet. We came to an agreement that we will choose the best qualifying candidate and focus on three important criteria which was their work experience, former evaluation reports (Army document), and their potential.

The interviews were completed and we narrowed down our decision to two candidates. It was quite difficult to choose between the two because you had one who was fully qualified with experience, evaluation reports were fair, and potential was fair as well. Then we had the other candidate with fair experience, but very high ratings with his evaluation reports and his potential. Me personally, I wanted to make the decision of hiring the one with high ratings in potential and his evaluation reports. Because in my opinion, it would be easy for the individual to catch up on the experience part. That is where the conflict came to life, the other board members did not agree with myself and one other in the hiring of the individual discussed. They were solely focused on the criteria that was given by the policy and score sheets for the hiring process. After a day of deliberation, we eventually became at a stale mate, which left the ultimate decision to myself. I always believed in progression, the future, and what is best for my organization. I ended up choosing the individual who I thought was the right one from the beginning.

This caused conflict within the ranks and was challenged by the other board members and brought all the way up to our Adjutant General for further review. The review was overturned and the justification of preventing an Inspector General investigation was imminent. The ultimate vision as stated earlier was to pick who was best for the organization. The other board members or (stakeholders) simply explained their roles on overturning my decision. Ultimately at the end it was for the best (although it took a while for it to sink in).

Five ways I believe that the stakeholders involvement (if collaborated in the first place) would be for effective decision making would be Efficiency, openness, trust (performance agreements), articulating a vision together, and establish clear conditions of satisfaction as a team, (Levine, 2009) Having efficiency with the stakeholders provides a workable agreement and creating a shared vision. Then there is openness, if all of us are open to each other’s understanding of what we saw as the right choice moving forward we probably would not have had any issues. Trust goes hand in hand with being open to each other and ensuring that the decisions being made although we disagree, the trust that the decision being made will be for the best in our organization. Then finally establishing clear conditions of satisfaction as a team, which simply put, at the end of the day we compromise and come up with a solution for the betterment of the organization.

For me personally, I did not achieve my objective, as stated earlier I wanted the individual to prove we can in fact change the culture of the more experienced worker with the more potential based worker with a better work output for the organization. However, the “right” way had to be implemented and the other person was chosen. Looking back at it, I do not think there was anyone other than the board members who can influence the decision, I mean we did get our Adjutant General involved, but it was inevitable.

If there were three ways I can use this as a tool for making decisions in the future I simply would as Levine (2009) discussed as having an intent and vision. In any interview board in the future I would lay down the intent and vision to include input from the other stakeholders (board members). (p. 169) the second would be to establish a renegotiation term if any decisions were not in concurrence. Simply put to come to a compromise within the board. (p. 164) then finally coming down to an Agreement, if we as a team could come to an agreement without any outside interference or recommendations I believe things would run and be conducted in a much smoother practice compared to getting those who are above us involved.

Reference:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

A632.6.3.RB_Manglona, Matthew-Napu_The High Cost of Conflict

Levine (2009) discusses the cost of conflict in four different ways, which are direct, productivity, continuity, and emotional cost. (p. 16) the cost of conflict I experienced falls in the realm of productivity cost. Which Levine (2009) stated as “a value of lost time. The opportunity cost of what those involved would otherwise be producing.” (p.16) I remember getting into power struggle with one of my peers during a mission that was deemed critical, the flawless execution of the task would have definitely set my soldiers up for an award that has never been accomplished or received before by a Guam Guardsman. He was in partnership with me and my Platoon and he fell under me (although the same rank) to augment my guys for his future assignment moving forward. I gave my guidance on to how I wanted to accomplish my tasks but he directly intervened wanting to things his way, which to me was not going to happen. He was a guest in my eyes. So we had half the day to plan but was wasted and that half day (more life a full day) of arguing was irrelevant because he felt that my planning was not sufficient to “his” standards. He even threatened me on reporting to our commander about my plans and behavior. This was a waste of both of our times because the plan was set and approved but he wanted to do things his way.

This issue eventually cost more problems as Levine (2009) discussed as the opportunity cost. If we were to shift our focus as a collaborative team, let alone realized that the soldier’s time was being wasted with us arguing, I think we would have had better results. Due to the arguments and stale mate in finding solutions, we missed the opportunity to accomplish our tasks and we failed to me our goal in achieving the event’s overall intent which was receiving the prestigious award that never has been done before. Levine (2009) discusses the 10 principles of new thinking (p.46) I believe if I was to have this or learned this concept I think things would have been a little different. During that time I was a young hot-headed Lieutenant and wanted to accomplish things on my own. However, if I was to go in there with an open mind as Levine (2009) stated “Being open is not being weak. Being open is being your real authentic self. Getting beyond your initial resistance.” (p.72) which falls in line of the 5^th Principle of Being Open. I should have been opened to suggestions and hear what my peer had to say, maybe even come to a compromise, because when I look back at it, it may have helped me and my soldiers out in the long run.

Then thinking about the 9^th principle of Learning throughout the resolution process (Levine, 2009) where I could have listened and be able to learn at the same time. Being an open book or sponge and absorbing the information being given. I should not have been so defensive at the time. Levine (2009) stated “Learning is a useful way to get rid of the ego-based ideas of winning, being right, fixing blame, or doing it the “right” way.” (p.97) If this concept was used I would have been able to at least come to a compromise if I felt that my plan was solid, but still welcome outside perspective, I would have saved time and probably raised my probability of winning the award anyway.

With these two principles this could have shaped things into becoming successful for parties. That’s my counterpart, my soldiers, and myself. Time was dearly wasted on how we were going to execute our plan, most of all because of the opportunity of solidifying a plan drastically disappeared our soldiers were the ones who felt the biggest hurt in all this. What I learned from this exercise is to simply take a step back and analyzed your surroundings. Know your internal and external conflicts to achieve true success. We cannot ignore that we will experience conflicts on the way no matter what, it’s just how we cope with the conflicts that we become better at what we do. I actually will use these principles and hang it in my office for future use.

References:

Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: turning conflict into collaboration. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

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

A632.5.4.RB_Manglona, Matthew-Napu_ How Protected are Your Protected Values

My first protected value comes from being an indigenous inhabitant on my island. Because we are a melting pot of ethnicities that live here, there should be certain rules that should tailored to us as the indigenous people. Although I serve as a military service member I still hold my values to my land that I come from. That being said, my protected value consists of protecting our sacred lands from the use of military for certain firing ranges. These are the reasons why I believe that this situation should be considered, the indigenous people of my island have now become the minority, we have always been a colonized territory dating all the way back to 1521, and finally we (my people) never get a say in what is good or bad for our island. Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, (2001) stated “values are like concepts, which are constructed from knowledge and experience.” (p. 2684) Here are the trade-offs that come with the military wanting to take more of our land, the first is that they will create jobs for creating these ranges, however, they what my people don’t know is that these jobs will be contracted to outside businesses from other parts of the world that will come as a cheaper option. The second is that the Department of Defense will ensure heightened security for our island from other Pacific or Asia Pacific threats which is not a good thing because it leaves us as a bigger target for these other countries. Finally, providing the island with the infrastructure needed to mimic our host nation the continental U.S. such as buildings, roadways, and other tools needed for our upgrade, however, we really don’t need the upgrade.

The second protected value I care about is protecting our homes with the right to bear arms in the direction towards the castle-law doctrine. The three major beliefs to this value is that one should always protect their family and their belongings. The pros to this belief is what was already stated, but the con is that there should be a tighter gun control in regards to obtaining one. The second is that we shouldn’t live in fear in our own homes, and third is that we shouldn’t need to retreat from our own homes from someone who is trying to commit a crime and place a family in danger. Yes, one argument I hear sometimes is that we cannot go looking for confrontation while protecting our house, car, or any other means in regards to personal property. Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, (2001) stated “values can be inconsistently expressed across contexts, which is why preferences do not always reflect deeply held values.” (p.2705) the writing of this law was emplaced to ensure that those who are protecting their homes are the ones who carry the burden. Which I don’t agree with because I believe that all should have the right protect ourselves without any consequence.

The third protected value I have is having our territory of the United States the right to vote for our President. The first belief is that I am a service member who has been deployed to protect our nation and its interests. The least we can receive is the right to vote for our commander and chief. The second belief as to why should be given the right to vote is because we have been left in the dark when it comes to policies in place that we cannot have any say, just like my previous statements of the firing range and military build-up on our island. The third belief is that my ancestors were prisoners of war during World War II when the Japanese occupied and took over our island for 3 years. It is a disservice to our people who didn’t even receive war reparations. The trade off to this issue is that we don’t possess the population to be seen as a voting part of the U.S. Presidency. 

I have had these values instilled in me since I was a young kid and when I joined the service. I think being deployed opened the gates for my thought process to be humble yet aggressive in what I believe in. These three values that I discussed have always been a part of me. I still feel as strong before this assignment ever came about. These values will always be important to me.

References:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Bad Decisions. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

A632.5.5.RB - Protected Values in Decision Making

A632.5.5.RB_Manglona, Matthew-Napu_ Protected Values in Decision Making

Going back to my reflection blog my protected values were protecting my homeland, protecting myself, family, and home in regards to the castle law doctrine. Then finally having the ability to vote for the President of the United States. I am willing to do what I feel is right, so when asked how far I will go to support my values? I would go so long as I can, and continue to serve in a capacity of making a difference (my current position in the military). Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, (2001) stated “people who endorse PVs violate them in their behavior, but these violations do no imply that the values are irrelevant for social policy.” (p.2680) Reflecting on these protected values I believe that protecting my homeland is the most crucial out of all of them. The reason being is that we have been colonialized since our existence and we never really had say in our development as a people. Gilbert (2005) stated “they always think now is better than later.” I look at this statement and try to look beyond the now, and look toward the future. I want my kids to understand their culture, respect it, and embrace it. Then again we need a home to establish this vision but we are being stripped of our land as years go by.

The second value is being allowed to vote for the President of the United States. We have been fighting for this opportunity before I was even born. I hold this dear to my heart because I serve in the military, I have been deployed overseas in a combat environment protecting our nation. Yet, me and my people still have not gained the right to vote. I will support this process so long as I continue to serve in the military and beyond. Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, (2001) discussed that people may deliberately abandon their values because of the poor thought process and they have yet to be put to the test.” (p. 2684) We have been pushing the bill through Congress and the Senate, but up to now no prevail. I understand we are a territory of the U.S. but we should be able to be given the opportunity to vote, no matter how small our population is or how far our territory is from the mainland U.S.

The third value is the castle law doctrine and being able to protect my family and property is a value that really sticks with me. I guess because of my profession, what I have seen, and what I have experienced I would always want to protect my family with no repercussion. I never possessed a gun until my parent’s house was broken into. Gilbert (2005) stated “People have a lot of trouble making decisions about things that will happen at different points in time.” I did not know what to do, until I helped vote for the law on my island and things just took off from there.

The couple of protected values I have shared will only influence my decision making if progress is being made. What I mean by that is moving forward with my values and hoping to make changes within at least the first two I discussed.  Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, (2001) discussed that behavior and values may conflict. (p. 2596) In some sort of way it is bound to happen when emotions and other factors come into play, but I guess it comes down to the individual and their actual beliefs moving forward with their values.

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Bad Decisions. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Gilbert, Dan (2005). Why we make bad decisions. Retrieved from: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness 

A632.4.4.RB - Deception in Negotiations

A632.4.4.RB_Manglona, Matthew-Napu_ Deception in Negotiations

If I can evaluate negotiating information in my day to day life I would go with what Hoch, Kunreuther,& Gunther (2001) discussed of setting goals carefully, look for justifications, assess underlying uncertainty, and prepare carefully. In setting goals carefully, I ensure that I set a realistic goal that is at a high reward and gain, however to remember that I should always set the goal as near achievable than near impossible.  Then looking for justifications, being able to understand my position of my decision making and ensuring that I have information to back it up. Without data or information I would be good as lost when it comes to negotiating for my personal cause. Assessing underlying uncertainty is what I see as one of the important factors to negotiating. Failing to ask the right questions to understand the end state will leave the person into deception and at the failing end. Finally, when it comes to preparing carefully by establishing a rehearsal to oneself in what he or she wants to accomplish. Hoch, Kunreuther,& Gunther (2001) discussed that that when a person is overwhelmed or caught off guard with unexpected questions they tend to fall back on deception. Being prepared and being able to understand the product or situation to sell, success will only come out of it.

Hoch, Kunreuther,& Gunther (2001) stated “as the benefits of lying rise and the costs of lying fall, negotiators become more likely to lie.” (p. 2025) When it comes to gaining one’s personal agenda one will do almost anything to accomplish it. I remember when data crunching and inputs were crucial to obtaining more funding for the program that I run.  It was coming close to the deadline of turning our State Plan in with the data to support our claim to receive more funding. We have had trends that brought our numbers up for us to tweak our numbers to justify our budget. Every year I go to our headquarters (HQ) in D.C. to request for more money in which we receive a base line of $500,000. I go there and request for a firm $800,000 knowing that I will never get it, then the HQ says we will give you $750,000 with a possible additional funding within the fiscal year. I have no problem with that so long as I get more than the base line budget. I just justify my claims of needing the funding with the data that we collect.

A recent negotiation where I was duped was with one of my cousins who convinced me into buying a truck from his dealer for $45,000. He told me the base line of what he can get me my truck for and he will take care of the rest. I ended up going to his dealer with $40,000 (initially what my cousin told me) but the dealer told me he can only let go of the truck for $50,000. The negotiating of $48,000 to $46,000 was really leaving me in a mood where I didn’t want the truck anymore. I was so convinced I can get the truck to $40,000 because of what my cousin told me but the dealer wasn’t having it. Finally, we came to a conclusive deal of $42,000. Hoch, Kunreuther,& Gunther (2001) discussed that negotiators are more likely to justify their distortion of information when information is not known. (p. 2052) in my case is what happened to me, I didn’t even know what was going on because of what I was told. It was both my cousin and his dealer who got the better end of the deal for whatever side deal they had going on without my knowledge.

When asked to define “how far you would be willing to go to leverage your position?” I would answer depending on the two factors of personal agenda and morals, I would use something to effect of what is best for both people, the negotiator and his or her client. I guess in my experiences so long as I am in the range of benefitting both parties, it allow me to consciously sleep at night. For some people they really don’t care which is not shocking, like my example with my purchase for my truck, but this is a world where personal gain is a must, and sometimes we just have to embrace or accept that concept.

References:

Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions (1^st edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.