Picture this, you’re typically always the last team to remain behind, surely you’ve done a lot of work? Surely we know exactly what we’re doing and we’re working hard throughout the three hours given to us in class time. But suddenly upon uttering his name, Peter appears into the room asking “So boys….. What have you done?”. This third reflection will tackle my personal and teams inability to navigate difficult choices, decisions and questions when confronted by within the simulation and real life. It will be structured accordingly to the stages proposed by Daudelin (1996) but will mostly reference Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa’s (1998) exploration behind the hidden traps that reside within decision making.
Articulation of the problem begins with how me and my team sometimes froze up in response to questions and situations we are suddenly confronted by. An example of this was when Peter asked “Why won’t you get a loan?” In response he was met with “because….” and trailing off. This was definitely a problem, and coming from the lecturer could be felt across our team as either interrogative, questioning or perhaps was done out of good will (guidance/hinting).
Analyzing the problem it was now obvious to me upon reflection that when we are confronted by even simple questions, it made me realize how much we overlooked and dismissed them. It also made me aware of what my default responses are and questioning whether we must always be prepared with an answer to any question that can be pitched towards us. My responses ranged from stammering and trailing off or heavy internalizations that formulated into thoughts of “Aren’t loans always bad? Its difficult to be repaid… Wait I need to link it back to the simulation somehow… uhhh…. Surely someone (else but me) could answer this question right?”. Hammond et al. (1998) suggests the avoidance of anchoring your own ideas, because if you reveal your unsureness it can potentially be reflected back to you which happened to the team around me who I solicited information from.
Formulating a theory to explain the problem can be further developed by Hammond et al. (1998) who proposed that instead of inferring to others, allow yourself to think on your own instead of becoming anchored by their ideas. This was heavily present throughout situations when my team members were questioned and because they couldn’t think of an answer, I realized that subconsciously my mind made me think that their response was speaking on behalf of the team (and myself) and not only for themselves. This attribution revealed to me that different perspectives are needed in viewing problems. I also heavily align to what was said by Hammond et al. (1998) who revealed that Peter had the role of a respected person who could play the devil's advocate in picking apart and questioning our progression. That it is better to seek out and listen to people who were uninvolved within our early decision making. This essentially allowed us as a team to be honest with ourselves, and instead of seeking information that conforms to our beliefs and strategic decisions made, we’re instead taking in the conflictive and more honest information to make smarter choices.
My decisions around actions that arose from this problem is the consideration of allowing for conflict within our group. To not surround ourselves with monotonous yes-men, and allow for each member to be vulnerable when admitting to mistakes or questioning every decision made. I hope that I’m able to rationalize when questions are asked to me and to provide a more substantial answer than a trailing response that irks the response of a “Hmmmm..?’ from Peter once again.
Daudelin, W. M. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36-48.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 47+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/apps/doc/A21114518/AONE?u=learn&sid=AONE&xid=a9c18574