read those 6 files
help me find the difinations from the document. if the document doesnt have the word meaning then blank that one.
How to Avoid Catastrophe
What are near misses?
Near misses are often unremarkable small failures that permeate day to day business but cause no “apparent” harm.
People are hard wired to misinterpret or ignore the warnings embedded in these failures, and so they often go unexamined.
If conditions were to shift these near misses could erupt into chaos and crisis.
When disaster happens numerous poor decisions and dangerous conditions have contributed to it
With near misses we overlook the warning signs. With each near miss, rather than raise alarms and prompt action, we move on along the process because nothing happened
We accept the fact that nothing wrong happened as a good indicator that we are making the correct decision
Multiple near misses normally proceed every disaster and business crisis.
Most of the misses are ignored or misread. Our cognitive biases conspire to blind us to these near misses.
Two particular cognitive biases cloud our judgment.
1. Normalization of deviance – the tendency overtime to accept anomalies as normal, particularly risky ones,.
Things we become too comfortable with become normalized.
Therefore, what should be dangerous could be perceived in our minds as being safe because no dangerous event has ever occurred.
2. Outcome bias – tendency to focus on the results more than on the often unseen complex processes
Near misses should be instructive failures where leaders can apply their lessons to improve and ward off catastrophe
However, ….
….when people observe successful outcomes, and do not recognize and learning from near misses, it is simply not a matter of not paying attention
Roots of crisis
When people observe a successful outcome, their natural tendency is to assume the process that led to success was fundamentally sound…. even when it was not
Organizational disasters rarely have a single cause
They are initiated by unexpected, seemingly unimportant small latent/human errors of:
technical failures
bad business decisions.
These latent errors or human errors align with enabling conditions to produce a significant failure.
Enabling Conditions are factors in the environment that contribute to an event happening.
Latent errors often exist for long periods of time before they combine with enabling conditions to produce a significant failure.
Whether an enabling condition transforms a near miss into a crisis normally depends on chance.
Thus, it makes little sense to try to predict or control enabling conditions.
Instead, companies should focus on identifying and fixing human errors before circumstances allow them to create a crisis.
Because latent errors are normalized by bias, near misses become increasingly acceptable. Further, deviances caused by the near misses are also normalized.
Remember: These latent errors underlying a crisis exist long before the crisis happens.
These deviances are cognitively ignored because of our outcome bias. The latent errors only become apparent when a crisis gains momentum.
When coupled with the right enabling conditions the crisis will erupt. Only when enabling conditions occur, the latent error will trigger a crisis.
Recognizing and preventing near misses
Research suggests there are seven strategies that can help organization recognize near misses and root out the latent errors behind them.
Heed high pressure
The greater the pressure to meet performance goals, the more likely people are to discount near miss signals or misread them.
A classic case of normalization of deviance is exacerbated by political pressure.
Pressure can create an atmosphere that increasingly accepts less than expected performance.
Research shows that when people make decisions under pressure, they tend to rely on heuristics, or rules of thumb.
Thus, they are more easily influenced by biases in high pressure work environments.
People who are more easily swayed by outcome bias are:
more likely to normalize deviance
more apt to believe that the decisions are sound.
2. Learn from deviation
Research shows that decision makers clearly understand the statistical risk represented by deviation, but become increasingly less concerned about it.
It is important that leaders seek out operational deviations from the norm/specific rules and examine whether their reasons for accepting or tolerating the associated risk has merit.
The question to ask is whether we have always been comfortable with this level of risk? Has our policy toward this risk changed overtime?
3. Uncover root causes
When leaders identify deviations, their reflex is to correct the symptom rather than its cause.
Leaders are to create an intentional model to report near misses.
Leaders should be encouraged to report mistakes and near misses so the lessons can be teased out and applied.
4. Demand accountability
Even when people are aware of near misses, they tend to downgrade their importance. OneNote be comfortable is to hold leaders responsible for and to justify their assessments of near misses.
5. Consider worst case scenarios
People tend not to think through the possible negative consequences of near misses unless they’re expressly advised to do so.
Research shows that examining events closely helps people distinguish between near misses and successes.
Research also suggests people will often adjust their decision-making accordingly.
6. Evaluate projects at every stage
When things go badly, managers conduct post-mortems to determined causes and prevent recurrences.
…….Research suggests this is too late.
When things go well, however, few managers do a formal review of the success.
Because near misses can look like successes, they often escape review.
Reward owning
Observing and intending to near misses requires people to be motivated to expose near misses.
In many organizations, employees have good reason to keep quiet about failures.
When critically examining projects while they are under way, leaders can avoid bias and more likely to see near misses.
A technique called pause-and-learn process typically uncovers near misses that have gone undetected in the past.
Conclusion
Two forces conspire to make learning from near misses difficult:
cognitive bias, and
outcome bias.
When leaders do not recognize these biases, leaders tend not to grasp their significance.
Organizations often fail to expose and correct latent errors even when the cost of doing so is small.
They miss the opportunity to improve and learn from these small mistakes.
The Hidden Traps in Decision Making
Making decision is the most important job of any leader. It is tough and risky.
Bad decisions can damage a business and a career, sometimes irreparably.
So where do bad decisions come from?
They can be traced back to the way the decision were made:
the alternatives were not clearly defined,
the right information was not collected,
the costs and benefits were not accurately weighed.
Research shows that we use unconscious routines to cope with the complexity inherent in most decisions.
The routines are know as Heuristics – an approach that uses practical methods that are not necessarily guaranteed to end in optimal results.
The process may not be logical, rational…but sufficient to reach a goal. Heuristic people who act on instinct default to mental short-cuts.
These short-cuts are influenced by:
bias,
misconceptions,
irrational ideas.
These are psychological traps – organized flaws – that cause distortion.
Mental short-cuts help us make continuous stream of distance judgements required to navigate problems.
The fuzzier and far away a problem seems to us in our mind, the easier it is for us to rely on heuristics.
Because the heuristic person put issues out into the peripheral, they tend not to see the imminent dangers.
Heuristics trick our minds into thinking that things are more distant than what they really are.
Heuristics is hard-wired into our brains making us make decisions on these “distant” issues on irrational thinking, biases, and other sensory misconceptions.
These psychological traps can undermine everything to where we fall into traps.
We will examine the psychological traps that are likely to undermine business decisions.
The Anchoring Trap
When considering a decision, the mind gives disproportionate weight to the first information it receives.
This means that the first bit of information/sound your brain receives influences your mind to any other second question. You become trapped by what you first hear.
This can come in the form of:
a comment,
an accent,
a person’s skin colour, or
a person’s clothing.
This trap places too much weight on past experiences/stimuli as being a reliable and relevant way to judge or assess current and new information.
What can we do about it?
These anchors are unavoidable therefore cognitive mechanisms need to be set in place to challenge this trap, thus reducing their impact:
Purposefully view problems from different perspectives.
Think before allowing yourself to be anchored by others.
Be open-minded and seek information and opinions from several people
It is important that you do not end up anchoring others.
If you reveal too much of your own, especially if you are a leader, preconceptions, they may end up anchoring others.
The Status-Quo Trap
We all like to believe that we make decisions rationally and objectively. However, we all carry biases and those biases influence the choices we make.
Strong biases perpetuate deciding based on the status quo.
Making decisions on status quo is comfortable because you may be avoiding taking action that would upset what others have come to accept as normal.
Staying within the status quo does not challenge us, does not increase our responsibility, and does not open ourselves up to unwanted criticism. Sticking with the status quo is psychologically less risky.
Research shows that the more responsibility you have to make decision, one tends to choose to stick with the status quo.
When there are alternative, the status quo will be more likely chosen.
The status quo does not require any additional effort.
What can you do about it? – Again, a set of cognitive mechanisms:
Continually remind yourself of your objective. Examine how you would be serving your objective if you stuck with the status quo.
Never think of the status quo as an alternative. Doing nothing is ever a solution.
Avoid exaggerating the effects\results of moving away from the status quo.
When evaluating alternatives focus on the future potential rather than on past/historical results.
If you have several alternative, don’t default to the status quo because of the heightened effort and responsibility.
The Sunk-Cost Trap
Another bias is that once time, effort and money has been invested into a decision, you are stuck with the decision because of the sunk-costs and efforts.
The belief is that the past is irrecoverable.
We know that sunk costs are irrecoverable to the present
but
we project this same thought to the future leading us to make inappropriate decisions
Either people are unwilling to admit error or it is easier just to continue on.
Sometimes a corporate culture reinforces the sunk-cost trap.
If there are real or perceived penalties for making a past bad decision research shows that managers will be motivated to let failed projects drag on.
What can we do about it?
Seek out people who were not part of the original decision. They can remain objective because they have no past invested history associated with the decision.
Be aware of the influence of sunk-cost biases made by subordinates.
Don’t cultivate a failure-fearing culture that leads employees to perpetuate their mistake.
The Confirming-Evidence Trap
This bias leads us to seek out information that supports our existing instinct or point of view while avoiding information that contradicts it.
The confirming-evidence bias affects:
where we go to collect evidence but also
how we interpret the evidence
leading us to give too much weight to supporting information and too little to conflicting information.
When confronted with information with balanced argument we have a tendency to:
select, and
support …..
……that information to which we hold strong opinions.
The information that seems to contradict our thinking is dismissed without careful consideration to the facts.
We will become much more engaged with the things that confirm our existing likes and biases.
What do we do about it?
Check to see if we are examining all evidence with equal rigor
Check your motives
When seeking advice don’t ask leading questions that invite confirming evidence.
The Framing Trap
The way we choose to frame a problem or a question influences the choices we ultimately make.
We tend to frame things the way we want to see things or by the status quo.
You can frame a question with a negative or a positive spin – i.e. is the glass half empty or half full.
By using negative speak you can direct people to take the half empty approach.
Another example is framing with different reference points:
if you invest 100K you have a 50% chance of making a million dollars selling sheep. Or you have a 50% chance of loosing 100K trying to make a million dollars selling sheep.
Research shows that different reactions result from the different reference points presented by two different frames.
Eg. 50% of the people found this show so exciting. 50% of the people found the show to be super boring.
What can you do about it?
Don’t automatically accept the initial frame
Pose issues and problems in a neutral manner – including both gain and loss
Examine the way others have framed things before you accept information
Estimating and Forecast Trap
Making estimates and forecasts based on fairly certain information may be ok.
Estimating and forecasting where there is uncertainty is another matter.
Feed back is rarely given as to accuracy. Our minds find it very difficult to become calibrated for making decisions in the face of uncertainty.
When confronted with uncertainty we allow our minds to become clouded and the potential results to be distorted. This distortion does not allow us to assess probabilities.
This is an uncertainty trap.
There are three uncertainty traps:
1. The overconfidence trap – we are actually overconfident about the accuracy thus leading to errors in judgement.
Those who are overconfident about the accuracy within uncertainty, actually set a very very narrow range of possibilities. Their scope is very narrow.
2. The prudent trap – people are extremely cautious in uncertainty in order to stay on the safe side. This safe side could be real or perceived. Research shows that over cautiousness is encoded in formal decision-making.
This approach is so ingrained that even when worst case scenarios are infinitesimally possible of happening, the formal process remains overly cautious.
The past can overly influence us because of dramatic past events.
These dramatic events can distort our thinking and cause us to see or believe in a higher probability of something going wrong…..
…. even if there are no strong indicators.
What can we do about it?
to reduce overconfidence with estimates and forecasts make sure that you evaluate an outcome by looking at the extreme possibilities.
Minimize the distortions from recallability by cognitively not allowing past experiences cloud your ability to rationally think through the issue.
What you don’t know about making decisions – Garvin and Roberto
Leaders are made or broken by the quality of their decisions.
The reason:
most businesspeople treat decision-making as an event
Making a decision that way is to overlook the larger social and organizational context.
It’s a process that unfolds over weeks, months, or even years.
Decisions as Process: Inquiry versus Advocacy
Not all decision-making process is are equally effective.
Two broad approaches:
Inquiry
Advocacy.
Inquiry
Inquiry is a very open process. It’s all about:
alternatives
exchange of ideas
tested solutions
Inquiry considers options and works together. Goal is:
not to persuade
agreement on the best course of action
share information and
draw their own conclusions
With Inquiry
Encourages critical thinking and debate.
Participants feel comfortable raising alternative solutions.
People question assumptions.
Disagreements revolve around ideas and interpretations rather than entrenched positions.
The implicit assumption:
A solution will emerge from:
a test of strength among competing ideas… not duelling positions.
Advocacy
immersed in discussion and debate,
select a course of action on what they believe is the best available evidence
Not on new ideas and interpretations
Advocacy perspective…..participants
passionate about their preferred solutions
stand firm in the face of disagreement.
Passion:
Hard to remain objective
limits ability to pay attention to opposing arguments
Goal
make a compelling case,
not convey a balanced view.
Disagreements are:
fractious
antagonistic.
Personalities and egos come into play.
The implicit assumption – a superior solution will emerge from a test of strength.
This approach:
suppresses innovation
encourages participants to go alone with a dominant view
avoids conflict
CONFLICT
Constructive conflict
Critical thinking and rigorous debate lead to conflict.
Conflict:
not always means negative
brings issues into focus.
Conflict comes in two forms:
cognitive (intentional)
affective (emotion)
Cognitive conflict – disagreements of ideas and assumptions on best way to proceed
This conflict is crucial to effective inquiry
Challenging underlying assumptions:
flags real weaknesses
introduces new ideas.
Affective conflict is emotional.
Involves personal friction
clashing personalities
Diminishes willingness to cooperate.
The challenge for leaders
increase cognitive conflict
keep affective conflict at a minimum.
Meaning……..
keep emotional conflict at minimum
personal friction diminishes relationships.
HOW?
establish norms or rules
make vigorous debate the rule
…………..not the exception.
structure the conversation so the process fosters debate
Example: Point counter Point
One group is asked to develop a proposal
A second group generates alternative recommendations.
The groups exchange proposals and discuss the various options until there is agreement.
Intellectual Watchdog
One group is asked to develop a proposal
A second group critiques the proposal of the first and sends back for revision.
Cycle is repeated until proposal meets the standard of the second group.
But even if you’ve structured the process toward encouraging cognitive conflict, there’s always the risk that it will become personal.
How to structure?
First
pay attention to how issues are framed
the language used
Set ground rules about language
avoid words and behaviours that trigger defensiveness.
Second
help people step back from pre established positions
breaking up natural coalitions
assign people to tasks on some basis rather than traditional loyalties
Alternative alliance partners for people with differing interests to work with one another.
Third,
shift individuals out of well grooved patterns, or vested interests or highest. Ask groups to research and argue positions they ordinarily do not endorse.
Finally, ask participants locked in debate to revisit key facts and assumptions. Gather more information. People become so focused on differences that they end up reaching a stalemate. Ask people to examine underlying pre-assumptions.
13
Consideration
Once a decision’s been made and alternatives dismissed, some people will have to surrender the solution they preferred.
At times those who are overruled grudgingly accept different outcomes.
The critical factor appears to be the perception of fairness – procedural justice. People participating in the process must believe that their views are considered and that they had an opportunity to influence the final decision.
If so, participants believe process was fair and they will be more willing to commit themselves, even if their views did not prevail.
All opinions cannot prevail, but all opinions have value in shaping the right answer.
Voice without consideration is damaging. That leads to resentment and frustration rather than to acceptance. People need to believe that they were heard and considered. Thus, the decision-making process will be seen as a sham.
Leaders can demonstrate consideration through-out the decision-making process. At the outset, they need to convey openess to new ideas and a willingness to accept views that differ from their own.
They should avoid disclosing their personal preferences early in the process.
Leaders must take care to show they are actively listening and are being attentive.
How?
ask questions,
probe for deeper explanations,
echo comments, and
show patience.
After a leader makes a final choice, they should explain their logic. They must describe the rationale for their decision, detailing the criteria they used.
Most importantly, they need to convey how each participant’s arguments affected the final decision.
Closure
Knowing when to end deliberations is tricky. All too often decision-making rushes to a conclusion.
Decision making can drag on endlessly where a decision is made too late. Making a decision too early is just as damaging is deciding too late period.
Deciding too early
Sometimes people’s desire to be team players overrides their willingness to engage in critical thinking and thoughtful analysis.
Where a group readily accepts the first possible option is known as “group think”.
The danger of group think suppresses the full range of options to be considered but also unstated objections will come to the surface at some critical moment.
First line of defense against group think – leaders need to learn to recognise latent discontent (existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed). Leaders need to bring people back into the discussion
HOW?
This may be done by approaching dissenters one by one an encouraging them to speak up.
Second – another way to avoid early closure, cultivate minority views either through norms or rules. Minority views broaden and deepen debate as they stretch a group’s thinking.
Deciding too late
At times, a team hits the wall. Without a mechanism for breaking the deadlock, discussions become an endless loop.
At other times, people bend over backward to ensure even-handed participation. Striving for fairness, participants insist on hearing every view and resolving every question before reaching a conclusion.
This demand for certainty results and usually in an endless loop, replaying the same alternatives, objections and requests.
What do leaders need to do?
At this point it’s the leader’s job to call the question and announce a decision.
The message here is that leaders need to become more comfortable with ambiguity and be willing to make quicker decisions in the absence of complete, unequivocal data or support.
CONCLUSION
A Litmus Test
Successful outcomes can be evaluated only after the fact. Is there anyway to find out earlier whether you are on the right track.
Researchers suggest there is. Research shows that there are a set of traits that are closely linked with superior outcomes.
Multiple alternatives
When groups consider many alternatives, they engage in more thoughtful analysis and usually avoid settling too quickly on obvious answers.
Assumption testing
Facts come in two varieties:
those that have been carefully tested and
those that have been merely asserted or assumed.
Effective decision-making groups do not confuse the two. These groups step back from their arguments and try to confirm their assumptions by examining them critically.
You may still find they are lacking hard evidence, but at least people will know they are venturing into uncertainty if you have critically examined your facts.
Well defined criteria
Without clear goals, competing arguments become difficult judge.
Fuzzy thinking – long delays are the likely result.
To avoid this problem specific goals up front and repeatedly during the decision-making process.
Although these goals can be complex, quantitative and qualitative, at the fore.
4. Dissent and debate
there are two ways to measure the health of a debate:
the kinds of questions being asked and
the level of listening.
Some questions open up discussion; others narrow it and end deliberations.
The level of listening is an equally important indicator of a healthy decision-making process. Poor listening produces:
flawed analysis
personal friction.
Participants routinely interrupting one another before considering all the facts and information, affective conflict is likely to materialise.
Group harmony disappears in the absence of active listening.
5. Perceived fairness
A real time measure of perceived fairness is level of participation.
Often, a reduction in participation is an early warning of problems. Some members of the group are already showing their displeasure.
Keeping people involved in the process is the most crucial factor in making a decision, and making it stick.
It requires the strength to promote conflict while accepting the:
ambiguity,
wisdom to know when to bring conversations to a close,
patience to help others understand the reasoning behind your choice, and
ability to embrace both the divergence that may characterise early discussions and the unity needed for effective implementation period
Conquering a Culture of Indecision
Imagine….. presenting a project and waiting for everyone else to open the discussion:
No one wants to comment.
There is a loud silence in the room.
The comments are all positive.
Remarks are finally made but judging from their remarks, it appears that everyone in the room supports the project. The project ends….but has it resolved anything?
Appearances can be deceiving.
Many people may be discontent, keeping their reservations to themselves.
silence
discontentment
reservation
…..can strangle a project to death
The true sentiment may be that people oppose the project
Silence and the lack of closure leads to false decisions:
project has not resolved much
False decisions and conclusions get undone by unspoken factors and inaction.
Leaders are charged with:
reaching a decision
connecting
engaging with one another.
Leaders who do not take charge:
demonstrate the inability to take decisive action and
create a corporate culture of indecisiveness.
Leaders can break this culture of indecisiveness by:
challenging assumptions
encouraging dialogue
The quality of the dialogue determines:
how people gather and process information
how they make decisions
how they feel about one another
about the outcome of these decisions
Dialogue can lead to new ideas and speed as a competitive advantage
It is the single most important factor underlying the productivity and growth of the knowledgeable worker.
Breaking a culture of indecision requires a leader who can engender between people:
intellectual honesty
trusting relationships: connections
The leader must set the tone by:
using these connections
modelling open and honest dialogue
Setting the tone is only the first step.
To transform a culture of indecision leaders must also see that the organization’s social operating mechanisms have honest dialogue at their centre.
Leaders must establish clear lines of accountability for reaching decisions and executing them.
Follow-through and feedback are the final steps in creating a decisive culture.
Feedback can be used to:
coach those who are struggling
redirect behaviours of those blocking progress and
provide reward to those who achieve.
It all begins with dialogue
Studies show that products and operational strength are not what really sets the most successful organizations apart.
What can not be easily duplicated between these companies are:
the decisive dialogues and robust operating mechanisms and
their links to feedback and follow-through.
These factors constitute an organization’s most lasting competitive advantage.
Decisive dialogue encourages:
creativity
brings coherence to seemingly fragmented and unrelated ideas
Outcomes seem right because people have helped to shape it
Where there is intellectual inquiry rather than advocacy people are energized and ready to act.
In these dialogues it is important for the leader to inject realism
Further, this dialogue should appear open to insight where people feel:
energised
challenged
more sharply focused
It is important that there is not a failure to get all relevant information into the open.
How dialogue is conducted affects people’s attitudes and behaviour in subtle and not so subtle ways.
How dialogue becomes action
The social operating mechanisms of decisive corporate culture features behaviours marked by 4 characteristics:
Openness,
Candor,
Informality, and
Closure
Openness means that the outcome is not predetermined.
There is an honest search for alternatives and new discoveries. Leaders create an atmosphere of safety that permits:
good discussion
group learning
trust
2. Candor is a willingness to:
speak the unspeakable
expose unfulfilled commitments
air the conflicts that undermine apparent consensus
Candor means that people express their real opinions…..not what they think team players are supposed to say
Candor helps wipeout the silence
Informality encourages candor. It reduces defensiveness
People feel more comfortable asking questions and Reacting honestly
Closure imposes discipline
Closure means People know exactly what they are expected to do
Closure produces decisiveness by:
assigning accountability
deadlines to people
Closure tests the leader’s inner strength and intellectual resources
Leaders get the behaviour they tolerate….putting up with old cultures of individualism and information hoarding
Cultures should be one where there is:
transparency
information sharing
…..a cultural mechanisms of airing and resolving conflicts
Bringing conflicts to the surface is a sign of organizational health
A healthy culture provides the opportunity for:
open dialogue
a safe environment for disagreement
In every organization conflict is inevitable
Therefore, a healthy approach to conflict it can be an opportunity for identifying best solutions
Dialogue is not about stating a message once and assuming it will sink in
Change in corporate culture and behaviour is made through a repetition of the dialogue
True behavioral change comes through a genuine cultural change
It is important for the organization to develop a cultural/social operating mechanism that promotes:
free flowing,
productive and decisive dialogue.
Further, for dialogue to be productive, the conversation should be focused on a common task.
Follow-through and feedback
Follow-through is at the root of decisive cultures.
A lack of follow through destroys:
the discipline of execution
encourages indecision
A good example of a follow-through and feedback mechanisms is the performance and compensation review process…..especially if it is explicitly linked to the corporation’s social operating mechanisms.
This feedback mechanism, however, cannot be viewed as ritualistic
Where there is no genuine conversation or no feedback, there is:
no chance for employees to learn
no opportunity for candid dialogue between employees and leaders
Without the right type of dialogue:
feedback mechanisms will not work as intended
not serve its purpose
behavioural and cultural change can not happen
Leaders must give honest feedback to their direct reports, especially to those who find themselves not doing well
Finally…..feedback should be many things:
candid
constructive
relentlessly focused on behaviour performance
about accountability
implementation/execution
One thing….it should not be surprising to the employee
Feedback mechanisms should be conducted on a continual basis…as a year long process
Dialogue and Indecision
Intellectual
Honesty Social Operating
Mechanisms Follow-through & Feedback
Connection between leader and team Executive meetings
Strategy reviews Honest feedback, and reward high achievement
Model respect, openness and honesty Where the people of a corporation do business Coaching for those struggling
Decisive dialogue sets the tone for the organization Establish clear lines of accountability for decisions & action Redirect behaviors blocking the organization progress
Conclusion
Ultimately, changing a culture of indecision is it matter of leadership
It is a matter of asking hard questions:
how robust and effective are our social operating mechanisms
How well they are linked
did they have the right people in the right frequency
do they have a rhythm and operate consistently
is follow through built in
Further, a social dialogue mechanism must be marked by:
openness
candour
informality
closure
Transforming a culture of indecision is a big demanding task
It requires:
asking the right questions
identifying and resolving conflicts
providing candid and constructive feedback
Leaders with the strength to insist on honest dialogue and follow-through will be rewarded not only with a decisive organization but also with a workforce that is:
energised
powered
engaged
The Mission Statement
A mission statement is a short statement of:
why an organization exists;
what its overall goal is;
identifying the goal of its operations;
what kind of product or service it provides;
its primary customers or market;
its geographical region of operation.
It may include a short statement of such fundamental matters as the organization’s:
values;
philosophies;
a business’s main competitive advantages;
a desired future state—the “vision”.
A mission is not simply a description of an organization by an external party, but:
an expression, made by its leaders, of their:
desires;
intent for the organization.
The purpose of a mission statement is to:
communicate the organization’s purpose;
direction.
to its
employees,
customers,
vendors, and
other stakeholders.
As a company evolves, so will their mission statement. This is to make sure that the company:
remains on track;
to ensure that the mission statement does not lose its touch and become boring or stale.
A mission statement must not be confused with a vision statement. The vision statement leans more towards discussing where a company aims to be in the future. It is not necessary to go into detail for the mission statement.
The main purpose of a mission statement is to get across the ambitions of an organization in a short and simple fashion
Advantages
Provides direction
Mission statements:
direct a business into the right path.
play a part in helping the business make better decisions
Without the mission statement, businesses may struggle when it comes to making decisions and planning for the future.
Providing direction could be considered one of the most advantageous points of a mission statement.
2) Clear purpose
Having a clear purpose can remove any potential ambiguities that may surround the existence of a business.
People who are interested in the progression of the business want to know that the business is:
making the right choices;
progressing more towards achieving their goals,
Design
The following questions must be answered in the mission statement:
When designing a mission statement, it should be very clear to the audience what the purpose of it is.
“What do we do?” — The mission statement should clearly outline the main purpose of the organization, and what they do.
“How do we do it?” — It should also mention how one plans on achieving the mission statement.
“Whom do we do it for?” — The audience of the mission statement should be clearly stated within the mission statement.
“What value are we bringing?” — The benefits and values of the mission statement should be clearly outlined.
Life is Good: To spread the power of optimism.
Patagonia: Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.
American Express: We work hard every day to make American Express the world’s most respected service brand.
Warby Parker: To offer designer eyewear at a revolutionary price, while leading the way for socially conscious businesses.
InvisionApp: Question Assumptions. Think Deeply. Iterate as a Lifestyle. Details, Details. Design is Everywhere. Integrity.
EXAMPLES: (let’s analyze these against pg 7)
How (Un)Ethical Are You
Most of us believe that we are ethical and unbiased. We believe that we:
Make good decisions
Are objective, and
Reach fair and rational conclusions
Research shows that in reality most fall short of our inflated self-perception, where we
have the illusion of objectivity
These unconscious or implicit biases can be contrary to our consciously held, explicit beliefs
As leaders we need to let go of the notion that our conscious attitudes always represent what we think
The prevalence of these biases suggests that the most well being person unwittingly allows conscious thoughts and feeling to influence our objective decisions
This article explores four related sources of unintentional unethical decision-making:
Implicit forms of prejudice
Bias that favours one’s own group
A tendency to over-claim credit
Conflict of interest
1. Implicit Prejudice: Bias that emerges from unconscious beliefs
Research shows that people judge according:
to unconscious stereotypes
attitudes, or implicit prejudice
We learn to associate things that commonly go together and expect them to inevitably co-exist
Example:
Thunder and rain, grey hair and old age. We automatically make such associations to help us organize our thoughts. We grow to trust these stereo-types, however, they are binding and typically not accurate
Because implicit prejudice come from the ordinary and unconscious tendency to make associations, it is distinct from conscious forms of prejudice
This explains why people who are free of conscious prejudice still demonstrate biases
Example:
People who had strong implicit biases were less likely to select women for positions who exhibited “masculine” personalities qualities, such as ambition or independence
The biased perception was that these women possessed less social skills than men.
2. In-Group Favouritism: Bias the Favours Your Group
Have you ever helped someone get a position by asking a favour. Few people set out to exclude anyone through such acts of kindness
In-group favouritism amounts to giving extra credit to someone within your group
Yet while discriminating against those who are not part of the group is considered unethical, helping people seemingly close to us is often viewed favourably
Research shows that where people are equally qualified and similar in all respects, the person who is considered “part of the group” will unconsciously be seen to be more qualified
There is no hatred or hostility….this behaviour is the root of discriminatory favouritism
An example of this is where minorities, who are sometimes more qualified, are unconsciously discriminated against
3. Overclaiming Credit: Bias that Favours You
People generally hold positive views about themselves
Studies show that the majority of people consider themselves above average. The more we think of our own contributions, the less fairly we judge others
Research also shows that the more people think of themselves , the less other people want to collaborate with them
People overclaiming can destabilize alliances
Where people are in relationship and one takes too much credit for their contributions, they become skeptical about whether the other person is doing their fair share
As a result both parties reduce their own amount of effort in the relationship
Unconscious overclaiming can be expected to reduce the performance and longevity of groups
4. Conflict of Interest: Bias that Favours those who can Benefit You
Conflict of interest can lead to intentionally corrupt behaviour
Research shows how much conflicts can unintentionally skew decision-making
Example:
You have cousin who cheats on his taxes. You work for the tax department. You have a very close relationship with him. He is a builder and renovates your house for you at a reduce “family” rate. He is not doing well financially. Your neighbour also worked on your house. You discover that he cheats on his taxes as well
Question: Who would you report
Are you :
objective,
unbiased,
benefitting
Has your decision-making been unintentionally skewed
Were your actions in the best interest of all involved: your cousin, your neighbour, you
There is a built-in conflict of interest because of the family relationship
This built-in conflict makes it impossible for you to see the implicit bias in your flawed decision-making
There is also in-group favouritism
There is also Implicit Prejudice by association: “Blood is thicker than water” – an automatic unconscious association
What do we do?
Trying harder is not enough
To overcome these bias many companies are trying harder to focus their ethical teaching on broad principles of moral philosophy:
to help leaders understand the ethical challenges
Trying harder is not the trick
Ethics training needs to focus on how our minds work and expose leaders directly to the unconscious mechanisms that underlie biased decision-making
Leaders can make wiser choices if they are aware of their unconscious biases
Leaders need continual conscious strategies to counter the pull of their unconscious biases
Collect data
The first step to reducing unconscious bias is to collect data to reveal its presence. People are often so surprised by their bias
That is because people tend to rely and trust in their own intuition
People need to unpack and examine the facts surrounding the bias
Unpacking means evaluating the fairness of the claims of the bias
Knowing the magnitude and pervasiveness of your own biases can help direct your attention to areas of decision-making that are in need of examination
Shape your environment
Research shows that implicit attitudes can be shaped by external cues in the environment
Study findings suggest that one remedy for implicit bias is to expose oneself to images and social environments that challenge stereotypes
Don’t remain in an environment that reinforces your bias. Create new or alternative environments
If the environment is promoting unconscious biased or unethical behaviour, consider creating countervailing experiences
Broaden you decision-making
Would you be willing to ever be in a group where you were disadvantaged by your own decision
How would your decision differ if you could make theme wearing various identities not your own? John Rawls calls this the “veil of ignorance”
He says that if you can put yourself aside/deny your own identity, then you could make real ethical choices
To deny your identity would be to by-pass your biases
The Vigilant Manager
If you answered in the beginning of this chapter that you were an ethical person, how would you honestly answer it now.
People who aspire to be ethical must:
challenge the assumptions that they are always unbiased and
acknowledge that cognitive vigilance, even more than good intentions, is a defining characteristic of an ethical manager.
They must actively:
Collect data
Shape the environment
Broaden their decision-making
Only those who understand their own potential for unethical behaviour can become the ethical decision makers that they aspire to be.
Terms and Concepts
|
1 |
Means justifies the ends |
|
2 |
Libertarianism |
|
3 |
Vision |
|
4 |
Roles |
|
5 |
Transformational leadership |
|
6 |
Servant leadership |
|
7 |
Value proposition |
|
8 |
Egoist |
|
9 |
Ethics |
|
10 |
Ends justifies the means |
|
11 |
Inquiry |
|
12 |
Candor |
|
13 |
Heuristic |
|
14 |
Rights |
|
15 |
Utilitarianism |
|
16 |
Mission |
|
17 |
Issue |
|
18 |
Duties |
|
19 |
Altruist |
|
20 |
Assigned Roles |
|
21 |
Inside Versus Outside Partner Bottleneck |
|
22 |
Accountability |
|
23 |
Unconscious biases |
|
24 |
Cognitive bias |
|
25 |
Center Versus Business Unit Bottleneck |
|
26 |
Morals |
|
27 |
Normative ethics |
|
28 |
Meta-ethics |
|
29 |
Function Versus Function Bottleneck |
|
30 |
Virtues |
|
31 |
Selecting a leader |
|
32 |
Equal |
|
33 |
Fairness |
|
34 |
Latent errors |
|
35 |
Subconscious |
|
36 |
Enabling Conditions |
|
37 |
Assumptions of Fact |
|
38 |
In-Group favouritism |
|
39 |
Advocacy |
|
40 |
Global Versus Local Bottleneck |
|
41 |
Closure |
|
42 |
Informality |
|
43 |
The Status-Quo Trap |
|
44 |
Implicit prejudice |
|
45 |
Communication and dialogue |
|
46 |
Bias |
|
47 |
Proactive listening |
|
48 |
Openness |
|
49 |
The Prudent Trap |
|
50 |
Company values |
|
51 |
Perception of fairness |
|
52 |
Root causes |
|
53 |
Assumptions |
|
54 |
Collaborative |
|
55 |
Consequentialism |
|
56 |
The Sunk-Cost Trap |
|
57 |
Core values |
|
58 |
Heed high pressure |
|
59 |
RAPID |
|
60 |
Deontological |
|
61 |
Aesthetics |
|
62 |
The Recallability Trap |
|
63 |
Purpose |
|
64 |
Responsibility |
|
65 |
Axiology |
|
66 |
Normalization of deviance |
|
67 |
Outcome bias |
|
68 |
The Framing Trap |
|
69 |
The Confirming-Evidence Trap |
|
70 |
Analytical thinking |
|
71 |
Consideration |
|
72 |
Normalization |
|
73 |
Near misses |
|
74 |
The Overconfidence Trap |
|
75 |
The Anchoring Trap |
