Problem - 14 Days Straight

Introduction

This week’s MSLD632 blog is about collaborative decision making and how a previous decision making process could have been improved by getting more of the stakeholders involved and the five ways involving stakeholders can help make better decisions. I will also identify how this learning experience can be used in the future to make better decisions.

Background

In the summer of 1997, I was promoted to the rank of E-7 and was placed in charge of the squadron’s Sortie Support Section. The Sortie Support Section had 20 personnel, 16 assigned to maintain and distribute the sections tools and equipment and 4 assigned to manage the distribution and control of aircraft parts. After about 2 weeks of observing the operation, there were some obvious changes that needed to be made. These needed changes were not serious in nature, but were important to the efficient operation of the section and to morale of my people.

Having been through about 16 weeks of formal leadership training, I had a good grasp of how to involve stakeholders in decisions and I knew that if the ideas were theirs that getting change to take hold was a much easier task. One of the most glaring needs for improvement was the morale of the 4 supply troops. The problem stemmed from them having to work every other weekend. This meant that every other week they were working 13 to 14 days straight without a day off. Everyone in the squadron had to pull their share of ‘weekend-duty’, but once every other week was extreme. 

            Just a Problem – Not a Conflict…Yet

         The solution to the problem came rather easily to me. Weekend duty functions were stripped down to bare minimum requirements to where the more difficult Sortie Support tasks were only done during the week. This meant that our Sortie Support Personnel could be easily be cross-trained so that our tool and equipment personnel could order parts and the supply personnel could sign out / in equipment and tools. I was anxious to implement this change, but my leadership training told me to involve the stakeholders before implementing.

Conflict

         A meeting was called with the leader of the supply troops, an E-6 and the leader of tools and the equipment troops, also an E-6. The leader of tools and equipment, who had the least to gain, liked the idea very much. The leader of supply, who had the most to gain, was opposed. This outcome was not expected in the least, but upon reflecting on the outcome the realization that the supply culture was resisting integration into another culture made sense of the situation. Understanding that forcing this solution upon the supply troops would have been counterproductive, at least initially, I decided to be patient and wait…wait for the idea to grow upon him. After about 4 weeks and working 14 days consecutively, he came to me and inquired what it would take to train him and his group.

Ways This Conflict Could Have Been Resolved More Efficiently

         While the conflict did reach a resolution, although be it delayed by 4, had I followed the conflict resolution approach in Levine (2009), it is very likely a faster and more effective resolution could have been reached. For instance, had I started by asking each E-6 how they would solve the problem of having to pull weekend duty every other week and allowed it to become their idea it we would likely have not had to wait 4 weeks for implementation. Allowing others to get their story out and not leaving it trapped inside is the first critical action step of the 7 Steps to Getting to Resolution (Levine, 2009, p. 122). Additionally, involving more stakeholders could have also contributed in many ways.

1.     More stakeholder involvement would have likely resulted in the E-6 not holding out and succumbing to group pressure.

2.     More stakeholder involvement would have meant more possible solutions or variations of the solution taken that could have been discovered.

3.     Having all of the stakeholders involved would have created a sense of more personal ownership in the process and the synergy associated with pride. One of the benefits of the generated synergy could have been an increase in productivity.

4.     Each stakeholder would have been able share their frames of reference, exposing blind spots I may have. “Being unaware of our frames poses an enormous risk. All too often, managers look out at the world through one mental window and fail to notice the views offered by other windows.” (Hoch, Kunreuther & Gunther, 2001, p. 139). Including the entire team would have given a broader perspective.

5.     Having all of the stakeholders involved would have sent a message that this is a team decision and that everyone’s opinion is valued in our team.

         

How Future Decisions Will Be Affected

As I reflect back on this experience with the newly gained knowledge acquired after having been exposed to Levine (2009) and Hoch & Kunreuther (2001), there is clearly a need to identify all of the key stakeholders in decision making and when conflicts arise. Having their perspectives and values in the process will aide in coming to a decision / agreement that is likely to be more meaningful and one that has staying power. Equally important is allowing all of the stakeholders to tell their story. Trapped stories lead to frustration, and frustration can lead to broken agreements and decisions that cause discontent. Finally, involving all the stakeholders reduces the chances that a blind spot will derail the decision / agreement.

 

References:

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

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