PROBLEM SOLVING & DECISION MAKING
The Need Of The Hour Is Cross-Functional Collaborative Leader A detailed study on how a cross-functional collaborative leader in an organisation can solve problems rapidly Most successful executives depend heavily on their authority. They do this to ensure that things get done the way they want them to be done. When such executives are required to lead a cross-functional team, they often fail. The new workplace is full of cross-functional challenges, it behoves all of us to learn and practise collaborative leadership skills. Organisations need a leader who can work across functional areas, and lead the integrated team to its objectives. Successful leadership, across organisational boundaries demands this ability above all others: executives must be able to organise and energise busy people who do not report to them. This ability depends directly on a leaders willingness to examine and separate his sources of power, and wield this power in a mix appropriate to the given situation. The first organising strategy for powerful, collaborative leaders is this : Train the groups attention on two things. 1. Clear business results. 2. Meaningful experience for the participants. The leader should never let one focus become more important than the other. Collaborative leaders demonstrate a moral imperative in groups they create and lead. The moral imperative functions as an every day demonstration of personal values, and sends a message of relationship based on fairness to the team.
Page 1 of 14
Collaborative leaders know their sources of power. Organisational leaders by virtue of their position as managers get things done from the authority or power over others. A collaborative leader is keenly aware that authority doesnt work outside of his or her own reporting chain. Being collaborative leaders does not require giving up his authority. He simply has to add to authority those skills that accomplish integrative power. To use integrative power, the leader requires an audience and a meaningful message. There is always some conflict between departments. Blaming others causes the problem to persist, grow, and spawn other problems and conflicts. The best way to solve problems between is to surround the problems, with the people who blame each other. When encountered with a situation like this, collaborative leaders need to learn how to form a team, which comprises those who seem to be the problem. Then the team needs to be motivated, guided and helped to enable them to solve their own problems. Thus, by forming cross-functional teams, problems arising from various functional areas can be solved rapidly. Collaborative leaders dont use carrots or sticks to motivate team members. In responsible relationships, they move others to action without using carrots or sticks. Responsible leaders tap into others existing motivation. Collaborative leaders know what puts their team into motion and then position themselves to help them achieve these objectives. Collaborative leaders look for commitment and skills in their team members. Shared commitment to achieve an agreed outcome drives team members to find the skills and resources they need. Such focused and high-energy teams attract the best talent. Communication and problem solving are fundamental to collaborative, cross- functional leaders. They solve problems in real-time. They ponder aloud on possible meanings and interpretations. Shared inquiry and reflection on the part of the leader seem more important to most team members than being right. When thinking out loud, collaborative leaders pose questions to the group. Questions acknowledge a leaders need for help, engage group members attention, and open up the floor for volunteers to respond. Collaborative leaders include rather than exclude. They care more about whos not in the room than who is. They assume that everyone can shed
Page 2 of 14
light on the problem. This mindset is a powerful way to maximise participation. Collaborative leaders value consensus because they realise that when they lose a vote, it reduces the teams commitment to the project. In hard times, they value progress more than the consensus. Once all parties feel heard, even if consensus is not reached, the leader makes a decision and moves the group into action. Related Reading:
All power to you: Collaborative leadership works. Avery, M.C., The Journal for Quality and Participation,03/1999.
Hothead-handle with care Whenever there is a bomb scare, the unsung heroes are surely the explosives experts who constitute the bomb detonation squad. Defusing a bomb requires a very high degree of precision and skill and a very thorough knowhow of explosives. With sensitive and deft handling, a potentially explosive situation is neutralized, without any casualties. Mercifully, we dont have to deal with the explosive type of explosives, but what if we have to deal with the human type of explosives? If you have a coworker who blows his top for no reason, learning to deactivate that human time bomb does makes sense. Such a situation requires almost as deft handling as handling dynamite would! A few defusing tips Stay cool Tough, but the most effective solution nevertheless. Remember how a bull heads for the matadors flag? Similarly any sign of irritation, anger or fear on your part will be like holding out a red flag to a maddened bull. Speak calmly and in a measured manner, dont raise your voice to match his, and above all- look cool. Listen In your attempt to cool him down, you might start talking, not giving him a chance to give vent to his feelings- this will only aggravate the situation further. Ask him whats wrong and listen carefully. If you fake your attention it, and he spots it-his ire may turn towards you.
Page 3 of 14
Empathise If your colleagues wrath is justified, then let him know that you can understand what hes going through, and also mention that blowing up may not be the best solution. If you feel that your colleague is being hotheaded for no reason at all, it may not be wise to tell him so right then. Wait for him to cool down before being the voice of reason! Ask him for a solution Either he will be able to provide one or he wont. Either way, its fine. If he does- great! That solves the problem. If he doesnt- itll make him realise that shouting and indulging in violent outbursts is no solution either. Hopefully, this will simmer him down. Talk it out However not now, later. When hes in a less volatile mood, you can sit together and sort out whatevers troubling him. You could perhaps suggest how he can make his point without resorting to temper tantrums. This will require a great deal of tact, so if you feel out of your depth- ask a senior colleague to do the needful. Let the offender (for want of a better word) know that such behaviour will have serious repercussions on his career. When he sees that cannot indulge in the luxury of venting his spleen whenever he feels like, without damaging his career hell sober down soon enough! Before it becomes necessary for the management to intervene, you and your other co-workers can try to help your hot-headed colleague keep his cool. Decision-Making process. Organisations, many a times have to make rational decisions unwillingly. The timing and aptness of these decisions determine the existence of the organisation. As people differ from one another so do their decision-making skills and styles. The decision-maker's style and characteristics can be classified as: 1. The thinker, the cowboy (snap and uncompromising), 2. Machiavellian (ends justifying the means),
Page 4 of 14
3. The historian (how others did it) 4. The cautious. On a daily basis a manager makes many a decision. Some of these decisions are routine and inconsequential, while others have drastic impacts on the operations of the organisation. Some of these decisions impact the financial condition of the organisation. In our increasingly complex world, the task of decision-makers is becoming more challenging with each passing day. A decision-maker must respond quickly to events in this fast-paced economy. In addition, he must sometimes incorporate, a bewildering array of choices and consequences into his decision. Routine decisions are often made quickly, perhaps unconsciously without a need for a detailed process of consideration. However, for more complex and important managerial decisions, it is necessary to take time to decide systematically. An effective model needs to be evolved by organisations to help managers make the right decision. The simplest decision making model is where the decision maker has to choose between only two alternatives. This is known as Machiavellism. However, the ICE (Information Communication Entertainment) age possesses more complex situations where the alternatives are numerous and the risk is high. Deterministic versus Probabilistic Models: All the decision-making models can be classified as either deterministic or a probabilistic model. In deterministic models, good decisions bring about expected outcomes. However, in probabilistic decision-making models, the outcome is uncertain. Therefore making good decisions may not produce good outcomes. Unlike deterministic models, where a good decision is judged by outcome alone, in probabilistic models the decision maker is concerned with both the outcome value and the amount of risk. When the outcome of the decision is rather certain and where all the important consequences occurs within a single period, then it is classified as a deterministic decision. However, in many instances, these types of models are unencumbered with the two most difficult factors uncertainty and delayed effects. Both difficulties can be overcome by probabilistic modelling which includes the time discounting factor also. Irrespective of what model is used the below two steps are mandatory 1. Problem understanding is the most essential part of decision making. It encompasses problem structure and a diagnosing process for
Page 5 of 14
formulation and representation of a solution. This stage is the most important aspect of the decision making process. 2. Gathering reliable information at the right time is a component of good decision-making. It helps understand the nature of the problem by asking "who", "what", "why", "when", "where" and "how". Finally breaking into them three inputs groups namely: Parameters, Controllable, and Uncontrollable inputs. Uncontrollable factors are the main components of decision-making. Any Successful model to decision making demands a proper attitude as well as an understanding of technical matters. This probably is the most important element of successful application. Related reading:
1. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions, Net Company, Issue 002. 2. How to make a decision like a tribe, by Carlin P., FC Issue Premiere. 3. Tim Shannon, by Layne A., Altrec.com.
Managers can make or unmake cynical employees. Ineffective managers create cynical employees, says Jimmy Walters, Vice-President HR, VNet Inc., Canada. Many managers may dismiss employee cynicism about company policies as the griping of a few bad apples employees with bad attitudes who will complain no matter what. However, a recently completed study at VNet indicated that the most likely cause of employee cynicism is their perceived ineffectiveness of supervisors. According to Walters, three types of workplace experiences can make employees cynical: 1. Workplace changes that employees perceive as being unsuccessful 2. The poor leadership style of ones immediate manager or supervisor 3. Little or no employees contribution to workplace decisions Before looking at what managers can do to combat employee cynicism, lets look at employee cynicism in more detail.
Page 6 of 14
Causes Walters says that most managers believed a rotten core of employees with bad attitudes caused employee cynicism. But that is not what we found. It wasnt the bad apples who caused problems at the company; the problem was that the management spoiled the fruit. We believe that cynical employees are usually made, not born, said Walters. Personality traits did little in explaining which employees were highly cynical and which employees were not, he observed. Employees learn to be cynical when organisations continually fail to succeed at planned changes, or if they dont publicise their success at change. For example, employees could become cynical when a company goes in for downsizing to improve its finances but then produces no evidence of improved profitability. Cynical employees were less likely than others to think that they would be paid more if they performed well. This shows how cynicism can poison a company, Walters says. Rampant cynicism can create a spiralling effect and harm the chances of future improvements, according to Arnold Rogers, who coauthored the research findings. If there is a history of failed initiatives, employees may become so cynical that future attempts are essentially doomed to failure, he says. Cynicism about organisational change becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy. Reducing Cynicism How can managers avoid being part of the problem and become part of the solution? The VNet study findings point the way to improvement. Walters noted that employees reporting more management problems - those who said their supervisors were ineffective and not responsive to employee input - were much more likely to be cynical. Managers need to be honest and open to their employees about both their successes and failures, the study says. When plans fail, management needs to give credible and verifiable reasons for the failure to employees, Walters says. If management made a mistake, then they should say so. We dont have to wait for senior managers to do this. An employees immediate supervisor can have a significant effect on his attitude.
Page 7 of 14
Walters says managers can reduce employee cynicism by publicising any successful initiatives in their company or department. Sometimes managers may be embarrassed because the improvements seem slow in coming or relatively minor. But if you say nothing, employees are only going to assume that nothing has changed, or that things have actually gotten worse, he comments. Managers need to talk about successes and even partial successes as well, according to Walters. Many times, companies may announce a new policy or programme with great fanfare, but fail to inform employees that it was a success. Consequently, employees may assume that these plans failed. Employee empowerment - giving them inputs into decisions affecting their jobs and, when possible, letting them make these decisions themselves - can increase employees sense of control in a rapidly changing workplace that often seems out of control. This can increase productivity and decrease cynicism to a large extent. Related reading:
1.
Tips for motivating employees, Comedyzine.com.
2. Helping good workers get better, Hard@Work.
3.
Nine tips for motivating employees, Ivy Sea Organisational Communication
Shared decision-making process. A shared decision-making is an effort to transform conventional organisations into learning communities by giving local site participants the power decides locally. They are empowered to make decisions that involve them Shared decision-making creates high levels of involvement throughout organisation. For shared decision-making process to be success the organisation needs to be divided into learning communities. They need to have a site leadership team also. This creates a flexible and equitable learning environment based on the local needs. It will assume authority, responsibility, and accountability.
Page 8 of 14
Design teams are formed to study focus areas identified by the site leadership team. It is essential to integrate the process of shared decision into a larger picture of the organisation. Communication is a crucial component of shared decision-making. The shared decision-making process is ongoing and cyclical in nature. The following steps describe the process in action: 1. The site leadership team completes a needs assessment. 2. They create design teams and committees to address focus areas of need. 3. Design teams and committees research best practices and review the literature to develop action plans to address focus areas. 4. The design team presents action plans to the site leadership team. 5. If approved, the action plan is forwarded to various branches of the organisation for discussion and approval. If not approved, the design team is given further direction by the site leadership team for further study and planning. 6. If approved by the organisation as a whole, the design team implements the action plan. (Assessment of the action plan is also the responsibility of the design team and is presented at the appropriate time to the site leadership team.) 7. The action Plan is a reflection of the needs assessment. The assessments then become a part of the next cycle for improvement in the needs assessment phase." The following flowchart illustrates the steps in the shared decision-making process used at Springfield Public School District, Springfield, Illinois. This can be used for any organisation across the globe.
Page 9 of 14
Page 10 of 14
A shared decision making policy is more effective because it ensures participation of the workforce, which results in more commitment to the cause. CQ TEST - Link. Group Decision Making The decision making process can be stressful for both the employee and the organisation. Group decision-making is even more complicated. Some employees see it as a form of power struggle, others cannot bear the idea of losing and yet others simply do not like to make decisions. There are several types of group decisions: 1. Unilateral - Decisions made by one person, often the nominal leader, without consultation with other group members. At times, it can be appropriate. For example, a minor decision that needs to be made right away. If it is repeated and inappropriate, this type of decision can result in very low group commitment. 2. Handclasp - Decisions made by two members. One suggests, the other endorses and carries it through without adequate discussion or group consideration. This type has high commitment for the two who made it, but generally not for the others. 3. Clique - Similar to the Handclasp but with more people involved. This type usually occurs when a close sub-group decides what is good for the rest of the group. Repeated clique decisions cause splintering of the group and low commitment.
Page 11 of 14
4. Baiting A technique that reduces discussions around decisions. A person will say, "Now we have all agreed, right?!" and only the very brave will speak up. This usually suppresses obvious dissention and lowers group commitment. 5. Majority Rule - A popular way of making decisions. However, if the outcome of a secret ballot vote produces surprises, it is not always a good time to make majority rule decisions. This results in a sizeable segment of the group feeling devalued and decreases their commitment to the decisions in which they "lose" to the majority vote 6. Consensus - Similar to Majority Rule, yet nothing is a surpise. Each members is accquainted with the facts of the case..There is mutual agreement that, under circumstances, which may not be ideal, the decision made is a fair and workable. This elicits maximum support. Any type may prove effective under a given set of circumstances. However, it is obvious that the first five approaches are likely to reinforce the powerful in the group and create tension. Morale and membership commitment can be lowered. Since members possess the essential ingredients for the solutions to all problems, group decisions should be based on input from all the members.. Certainly, if the decisions are made by only a few people, it may not be necessary to involve an entire group. Though consensus is one of the best decision-making models, certain assets and liabilities of consensus decisions must be considered. Assets Of Group Consensus Approach: A. Greater sum total of knowledge and information B. Greater number of approaches to a problem C. Participation in problem solving increases acceptance D. Better comprehension of the decision E. Greater commitment of the members to the decision Liabilities Of Group Consensus Approach: A. Social Pressure - Minority opinions in groups can have little influence on the solution, even when these opinions are correct.
Page 12 of 14
Reaching an agreement in a group often is confused with finding the "right answer" B. Individual Domination - Skilled manipulators or dominant individuals can emerge and capture more than their share of influence on the outcome C. Conflicting Secondary Goal - People may aim at winning the argument at the cost of finding the best answer D. Risk Taking - The risk of not getting it their way, can prevent people from fully participating in the discussion E. Time - Listening and considering all points of view in order to arrive at the best solution takes time Factors That Serve As Liabilities Or Assets Depending Largely Upon The Skills of The Discussion Leader A. Disagreement - Can serve either to create hard feelings among members or lead to a resolution of conflict and hence to innovative solutions B. Conflicting individual interests vs. mutual interests C. More time may be needed to reach consensus D. One who has the greatest influence and can willingly change their opinions can reinforce the existing power structure and stifle uture member input and cooperation Group Consensus Guidelines DO:
Listen, not only to the words but also to the rationale being offered Pursue, your point and be persistent if you have good information Manage, your time effectively, relative to the number of decisions that are being made Involve all team members to ensure the use of their knowledge and experience Strive for the best answer. Thinking in cause-and-effect terms and avoid dealing only with symptoms
Page 13 of 14
DON'T: Argue for the sake of arguing or winning your point.
Give up on your convictions simply to avoid conflict. Let objective reasoning or sound information prevail. Allow the group to get stuck on a specific item-move on and come back later Compete by assuming that some win and some lose. Look for the best alternative
Sites
http://www.themanagementor.com/enlightenmentorareas/hr/ob/groupdecision.htm http://www.themanagementor.com/cq/hr/hrtest261101.asp http://www.themanagementor.com/enlightenmentorareas/hr/ob/sharedcomm.htm http://www.themanagementor.com/content/hr/organisationalbehaviour/2001/jun/kmailer_hr_ob28 .asp
Page 14 of 14
