SBenegaL

Category: Organizational Behavior

  • Decision Making: Creativity Influences

    In the last byte, we were discussing about creativity and its influence on decision making. In today’s byte, we look at what factors influence creativity.
     
    The factors influencing creativity could be classified into two groups:
    1. Individual factors affecting creativity
    2. Organizational factors affecting creativity
    Several variables that are extremely individual specific could influence creativity some of these are: cognitive processes like divergent thinking (thinking of several potential solutions for a given problem), association ability, use of imagery etc are all part of the individual creativity.
     
    Other factors like breadth of individual interests, high energy, concern for achievements, intuition, judgment, self-confidence, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking etc have been found through research to be influencer of creative processes.
     
    Importantly, the mood of individuals – preferably good mood – helps achieve creativity.

  • Decision Making: Creativity

    In the last byte, we looked at the role of intuition in decision making. In today’s byte, we look at the role of creativity in decision making. 

    Creativity could be defined as a process influenced by individuals and organizational factors that result in the production of novel and useful ideas, products, or both. (Src: Ref book) The constantly changing environments in which the organizations operate require the employees to think of creative ways to solve the challenges they face.
     
    The process of Creativity could be seen to possess the following 4 stages:
    1. Preparation – seek out new experiences and opportunities to learn
    2. Incubation – reflective thought
    3. Illumination – sensing the insight to solve the problem
    4. Verification – determination if the solution or idea is valid
    It is interesting to note that the creative dimension relies a lot on the relaxation of the brain! So sleep well 🙂

  • Decision Making: Intuition

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on how individual influences affect Decision Making. In today’s byte, we look at the role played by Intuition in Decision Making.

    Intuition is in essence a preference used to gather data. It could be defined as a fast, positive force in decision making that is utilized at a level below consciousness and involved learned patterns of information.

    Intuition allows an individual to step into another’s role with ease, and this ability to take roles is a fundamental to development of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning would help in an ethical decision making process. 

    If the question one asks at this juncture is whether intuition could be taught? The answer research has found says “yes” – the researcher Agor, also cautioned that at the top of the organization, both the brain hemispheres become important – this means one would need to have both an analytical and intuitive mind functioning at their peak.

  • Decision Making – influence of Brain Characteristics

    In the last byte, we looked at the Z-model of decision making. In today’s byte, we look at some characteristics of the brain that influence decision making.

    Numerous individual differences affect a manager’s decision making of these, the manager’s preference of logic or creativity influence most of the decisions that the individual makes. This difference of preference for logic or creativity has its origin from the individual’s brains.

    Human brain has two lateral halves – the right and the left. The right hemisphere is responsible for creative functions while the left hemisphere is responsible for logic, detail and planning.

    Clearly, each of these thinking comes with its own advantage and the best situation is to be “brain-lateral”, i.e. to use either logic or creativity or both based on the situation one gets in.  There are ways by which one could develop either side of the brain which one is not accustomed to using.

    For a manager, it is important to visualize the big picture – put a vision and plan strategically (predominantly right brain) and at the same time should be able to understand day-to-day operations and flow of work (predominantly left brain)
     
    It would be interesting to discuss the two dimensions of intuition and creativity and we shall continue that in the next few bytes.

  • Z Problem Solving Mode 2

    In the last byte, we had a look at the diagrammatic representation of the Z-model of decision making. In today’s byte, we look at in detail.

    According to the Z model of decision making, a good problem solving model should have the following 4 steps:

    1. Examine the facts and details
    2. Generate Alternatives
    3. Analyze the alternatives objectively
    4. Weight the impact
    In the first stage when we are examining the facts and details it is the sensing style that takes predominance and helps gather information about the problem. In the second stage, it is the intuiting style that could play a major role in developing the possibilities. In the third stage, it is the thinking that would drive the decision maker determine the effect of each alternative. The final stage uses the feeling dimension predominantly to determine how the people involved will be affected.

  • Z Problem Solving Mode

    In the last byte we looked at the intuition based decision making process. In today’s byte we shall begin our discussion on the Z Problem Solving Model.

    We could summarize the Z-problem solving model in the following diagram. We shall discuss about this in the next byte.




    Ref: The diagram has been adapted from the reference book on organizational behavior that we follow.

  • Jung’s Cognitive Style 3

    In the last byte we looked at the sensing based cognitive styles of decision making. In today’s byte we look at the intuition based cognitive styles of decision making.

    Intuiting/thinking:

    These individuals focus on the alternative possibilities in a situation and then evaluate each of them in an objective and impersonal way. These individuals love to initiate ideas and they like to focus on the long term, they are also risk taking and innovative. These make them suited for new business development according to research. They however have the weakness of ignoring arguments based on facts and the feelings of others.

    Intuiting/Feeling:

    These individuals seek out alternate possibilities and also consider how these possibilities influence the people involved. This nature allows them to make participative decisions and also develop their employees with commitment. They however could make decisions based on personal preferences rather than a clear objective way. They are also found to be too responsive to the needs of others.

  • Jung’s Cognitive Style 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on the Jungian Cognitive Theory. In today’s byte, we look at two of these cognitive styles and try to understand about them:

    Sensing/ Thinking:

    These individuals relay on facts – they generally conduct an impersonal analysis of the situation and then go on to making an analytical and objective decision. The ability to get a clear, simple solution is of immense value in an organization. These people are extremely detail oriented and very rarely make any factual errors – their weakness however is that they may alienate others due to relatively less involvement of the interpersonal aspects in decision making.

    Sensing/Feeling:

    These individuals relay on information gathering but they judge on how the decision would affect other people involved. While they put a lot of weight on interpersonal relationships they do not lose sight of the practical approach to information gathering and problem solving. The strength of these individuals is in their ability to take care of the interpersonal problems while taking in calculated risks too. These people however might have difficulty accepting a new idea that breaks the rule in an organization.

  • Jung’s Cognitive Style

    In the last byte, we looked at the affect of escalation of commitment. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on Jung’s Cognitive Style.

    Cognitive Style refers to an individual’s preference for gathering information and evaluating alternatives.

    Jungian theory gives us a frame to understand the way individuals understand and appreciate the differences in decision making. Carl Junk identifies two broad thought processes – one is the information gathering and the other is making judgements. An individual could gather information through two broad ways – sensing and intuition, he/she could also make judgments using two broad ways – thinking and feeling. This could lead us to see four cognitive styles:

    1. Sensing/Thinking
    2. Sensing/Feeling
    3. Intuiting/Thinking
    4. Intuiting/Feeling.
    Each of these cognitive styles has a definitive influence on managerial decision making – we shall explore this over the next few bytes.

  • Escalation of Commitment

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of risk aversion. In today’s byte we look at the concept of escalation of commitment.

    One often finds situations where good money is thrown behind a failing cause – this is an indication of escalation of commitment. Escalation of commitment refers to the tendency of people/organizations to continue to support a failing course of action. Escalation of commitment need not just take the form of investing more in a firm or a cause; it could also be in the form of bearing deeper losses.

    If one were to wonder why this tendency occurs, it becomes clear that one of the reasons could be that humans dislike inconsistency and that when there is inconsistency among their attitudes or inconsistency between their attitudes and behavior, they strive to reduce the dissonance. The other reason could be optimism and control which over estimates the likelihood that positive things will happen to them.

    One way to reduce the possibility of escalation of commitment in organization is to split the responsibility for decision of projects – one individual could be initial decision and another could make the subsequent decisions. Also it is possible to reduce such an act by making it a group decision scenario instead of an individual decision.