Download LDR-203S; COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING TEST NEW UPDATED and more Exams Introduction to Business Management in PDF only on Docsity!
LDR-203S; COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM
SOLVING TEST NEW UPDATED
Metacognition "Thinking about thinking" or the ability to evaluate a cognitive task to determine how best to accomplish it, and then to monitor and adjust one's performance on that task metacognition examples
- summon your prior knowledge
- think aloud
- ask yourself questions "what is confusing about this topi"
- use writing
- organize your thoughts
- take notes from memory as you're reading (engages recall)
- review your exams and analyze why you missed something
- take a timeout
- test yourself
Systems of thinking S1 - reactive thinking S2- reflective thinking System 1 thinking (S1) System 1 thinking is a vital decision-making tool that operates in the background of your mind. It aids you in supporting daily activities and making quick decisions. This type of thinking relies heavily on situational cues, prominent memories, trial and error, and heuristic thinking (e.g., discovering solutions for self) to arrive quickly and confidently at judgments. System 2 thinking (S2)
System 2 thinking, or reflective thinking, is broad and informed problem- solving and deliberate decision making. It is useful for judgments in unfamiliar situations, for processing abstract concepts, and for deliberating when there is time for planning and more comprehensive consideration. Argument making is often part of the deliberation process when making System 2 thinking decisions analytical thinking When you think analytically, you are examining and thinking comprehensively about the different parts or details of something, in order to understand or explain it. However, you must realize that analytical thought is not simply left brain, logical activity. It's a whole-brain, purposeful, and necessary approach for developing ideas. For instance, when analyzing a concept, object, or problem, you may be required to consider the following: analytical thinking Cause and Effect Complexity Similarities and Differences Possible Solutions and Alternatives Associations and Disconnections Steps within a Process Relationships Between All Parts Trends Sequence of Events Examples 5 W's: Who, What, When, Where, Why Analytical thinking is time consuming and requires attention to detail. During times of quick reaction or with time sensitive issues, it is not recommended to use analytical thinking to solve a problem. As an NCO and leader, it is essential to know when to consider taking your time to solve the problem or when to make the call when an issue is time sensitive. adaptive thinking
This type of innovation focuses on identifying new ideas for improving what already exists. This approach requires minimal investment since the team is building on the past and only looking for small changes to what is currently being done. These innovations are lower-impact improvements or adaptations of an organization's existing products, services, programs, or processes. The strategy for Efficiency Innovation is usually to cut costs, reduce cycle time, improve quality, offset a competitor's move, or attract new customers. Typically, only small gains are realized. evolutionary innovation This type of innovation focuses on identifying ideas that represent something "distinctly new and improved." An example of an Evolutionary Innovation is the introduction of automatic banking machines that transformed the way banks viewed their staffing needs and shifted banking from set hours to banking at any hour. Evolutionary Innovation requires the team to look more broadly than cost- savings initiatives and see the "bigger picture" of what is really needed in the organization. Instead of duplicating what already exists, the team must look for new ways to bring value to the organization and its customers through new and improved products, services, and processes which can change the way customers relate to the organization or the way work is processed within the organization. revolutionary innovation This type of innovation focuses on radically new and better ideas that may dismantle the existing structure of the organization. For example, McDonald's fast-food approach changed the restaurant business. Disney's unique characters and interactive theme parks changed the entertainment business. MP technology revolutionized the music sales industry. Cynefin Framework simple domain complicated domain complex domain chaotic domain Simple Domain
The simple (obvious) domain is characterized by stability and clear cause-and- effect relationships that are seen by everyone and are always going to be the same. Often, the one right answer is self-evident and undisputed since patterns are recognizable (if you do X, you're always going to get Y). Known-Knowns Sense, Categorize, Respond complicated domain In the complicated domain, there is a relationship between cause and effect; however, not everyone may be able to see it, so analysis or expertise is required. This domain may contain multiple right answers, many of which may be excellent. Therefore, good practice (as opposed to best practice) is more appropriate. This is the domain of "known unknowns" (there are things you know you don't know). Leaders in the complicated domain must sense (figure out what's going on), analyze (examine the facts), and respond. This approach is not easy and often requires expertise to analyze the situation. An example of a complicated problem could be your car has a knocking noise coming from the engine (sense). You don't know what's causing the noise so you take it to a few mechanics to get expert advice (analyze). Each mechanic can tell you a different way to fix the noise, all of which are viable solutions. So you decide to go with the cheapest solution (respond). Known unknowns Sense, Analyze, Respond complex domain In the complex domain, the cause and effect relationship is so intertwined that things only make sense in hindsight...after the situation has occurred and maybe even worked itself out. Right answers can't be flushed out initially...they aren't readily available. It's like the difference between, say, a car and the Brazilian
Take immediate action to reestablish order act, sense, respond 4 common steps in effective problem solving
- Define the problem; create a problem statement
- Generate alternative solutions; come up with possible ways to solve a problem
- Select an effective solution; pick a solution that will solve the problem effectively
- Implement solution and monitor; apply the solution selected and watch to see if it solves the problem problem framing the process of describing and interpreting a stated problem to arrive at a problem statement define the problem and consider different perspectives Problem framing should be part of the "Define the problem" step Framing can lead to a problem statement and solution that may not address the original stated problem...instead it proposes a different understanding of the problem brainstorming Brainstorming is a technique designed to stimulate a chain reaction of ideas relating to a problem. Brainstorming can assist you and others in building a variety of ideas in a short time about a specific problem or topic. To gain the most from a brainstorming session, use the following rules and techniques: brainstorming session rules Withhold Judgment - The first and foremost rule is to withhold judgment of any sort. Initiate no evaluation, criticism, or judgment about any idea until the brainstorming session is complete.
Encourage Freewheeling - The second rule of brainstorming is to encourage the freewheeling of ideas. This enables all individuals to make a contribution. Once ideas begin flowing, the leader allows the group to continue deliberating with little or no guidance. Remember, you aren't judging ideas at this phase of the brainstorming session. Aim for Quantity, Not Quality - Once ideas are flowing, write down the input of each participant and aim for quantity, not quality. Some ideas might appear silly; however, thoughtful consideration toward others' ideas will more than likely result in information that can be applied to current and future situations. Hitchhike (i.e., piggyback) Ideas - The last rule in brainstorming allows an idea to piggyback or hitchhike on another idea. In a brainstorming session, one member of the group suggests an idea. This idea triggers a thought in the mind of another and the process continues until you have a series of ideas prompted by one original thought or idea. Brainstorming Session Techniques Structured Approach - This approach means soliciting one idea at a time from each person on the team. Participants in the brainstorming session should refrain from commenting until the person facilitating the forum extends the opportunity. If the participants don't have a comment to share, they should say, "Pass." The session ends when everyone says, "Pass." Unstructured Approach (i.e., also called free-form brainstorming) - The unstructured approach allows team members to call out ideas as they come to mind. No one takes turns and the session ends when the team feels it has exhausted all ideas. Silent Approach - The silent approach is used when you want team members to write ideas on small slips of paper. Then, you collect the papers and jot down the ideas for all to see. One big advantage of a silent approach is it makes sure everybody is given the opportunity to have their thoughts and ideas thoroughly considered by the group. This avoids the loudest or most extroverted people unintentionally dominating the sessions.
fish bone diagram Fish Bone Diagram (i.e., cause and effect diagram) is a diagram used to depict the relationship between specific categories of process inputs and the undesirable output. This technique aids in identifying potential causes to a problem. 3Ms and a P Materials Methods Machines People 4Ss Surroundings Suppliers Systems Skills 4Ps Policies Procedures People Plant generating solutions Solutions…there could be many solutions to fix the problem. But how do you know which one is the best? Most practical? When generating alternate solutions, the first thing to keep in mind is…the more the better. During this phase, there are no "dumb" or wrong solutions. Throw out as many as you and your team can come up with. The idea is to not stifle creativity and come up with as many as you can. You'll whittle the solutions list down later. trimming solutions effectiveness viable feasible
Effectiveness Does the solution actually address and fix the problem? Viable Is the solution capable of working successfully? Feasible Will the solution fix the problem conveniently and be financially stable? Decision Analysis Matrix is a useful technique to use for making a decision. It's particularly powerful where you have a number of good alternatives to choose from, and many different factors to take into account. This makes it a great technique to use in almost any important decision where there isn't a clear and obvious preferred option. Being able to use the Decision Analysis Matrix means you can take decisions confidently and rationally, at a time when other people might be struggling to make a decision. The Decision Analysis Matrix tool works by listing your possible solutions as rows on a table, and the factors you want to consider as columns. You then score each solution/factor combination, weight this score by the relative importance of the factor and add these scores up to give an overall score for each option. While it sounds complex, this technique is actually quite easy to use. Here's a quick visual example: biases A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful — like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. How can biases impact the problem solving process? If you have a bias towards something, it could impact the solution you select. For example, if you have a bias towards your Airmen you would select a solution that would benefit them, even if that solution isn't the best one. Second and Third Order Effects (2nd and 3rd)
with the expected results
- Analyze any discrepancy to identify the reasons for it
- Take further action if necessary negotiation concepts aspiration point bargaining range best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) demand interest opposite position reservation point zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) task orientation/people orientation readiness/ripeness integrative and distributive negotiation Aspiration Point Best outcome negotiator hopes to receive. Bargaining Range The range between one party's aspiration point and reservation point. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) should negotiations fail, an option you can and are willing and able to execute without the opposite negotiator's participation or permission. Demand Statement of terms with no room for adjustment. Take it or leave it. Interest What you need. Underlying reason behind your position. Opposite
The person or group you are engaged in negotiations. Position What you want, not what you need. Reservation Point Your bottom line in the negotiation. Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) The area of overlap between each party's bargaining range. Task Orientation/People Orientation The task is more critical than the relationship we have with the people involved. Alternatively, building or maintaining relationships with people is more important than the task. Readiness/Ripeness Ability, willingness, and timing of negotiation. Integrative and Distributive Negotiation Win-win situation or win-lose with hardball tactics. TIPO Model Trust, Information, Power, Options TIPO identifies how trust influences your use of information and how power affects the way you develop options or solutions to solve or resolve a current problem, conflict, or situation. Within each negotiation are variables that influence the outcome of your efforts. They are trust, information, power, and ultimately the available options. Analyzing these variables while preparing for negotiations, or while negotiating, should assist in selecting the most effective negotiation strategy of your own to reach a mutually-satisfying outcome. trust Trust is the foundation of relationships with others and faith in a system. There are two major categories of trust: Trust in a Person and Trust in a Process.
Connection - This power pertains to who you know. This can erode if you use it as a primary source of influence. Legitimate - This is based on one's rank, position, or level of authority. Although you may be able to use this "power over" your opposite, consider the relationship and only use this power when your intentions are legal, ethical, and appropriate. Although all types of power are valuable tools in negotiations, don't threaten or inflict undue punishments or promise rewards you cannot deliver. Personal Powers These three personal powers are largely based on leadership traits. Followers respect and are committed to a leader with personal power, making them valuable tools in negotiations. Referent (Charisma) - This power affords the opportunity to encourage, motivate, and inspire others. Information - Access to secure data systems, leadership meetings, briefings, even gossip, increases your information power base. Some tend to withhold information from others so they maintain the advantage and the informational "higher hand." Expert - It suggests that you gain power and the ability to influence through your education, experience, and job knowledge. How you use and share this power base can improve or reduce trust, and ultimately influence the outcome of your negotiations. Options (TIPO) (Negotiation) Options are just different ways to potentially solve the problem. Option building requires two elements: Define the problem that needs solving Identify possible resources (information, power, time, people, money, etc.) that may be available. the who
Is it a subordinate, peer, supervisor, someone from another unit, service branch, or another country? When dealing with supervisors and peers, insisting may not be appropriate as our opposite may have more position power than us. For instance, it's doubtful any of us could force our commander to act in a given situation. Therefore, cooperating, settling, or complying may be more appropriate. On the other hand, if we have position power, and time is short, insisting may be the most appropriate style. Understanding "who" we are dealing with and the importance of the relationship can help us decide the best negotiation strategy to use. What are the Stakes (what do you stand to gain or lose) The stakes in a negotiated situation are what you stand (or are willing) to lose if negotiations go awry. If the issue is unimportant (the stakes are low), you could evade it or even comply with the other party. Conversely, if the issue is critical to you (the stakes are high), insisting or cooperating may be appropriate. Even evading may be the right choice at first in order to allow time to gather enough information to better understand the issue and to consider all options What is the Situation (current and future consequences) In a worst-case scenario like an emergency, you may only have a few seconds to act or make a decision. If there is no time to make an informed decision, you may have to "flex" your position power to at least impose a short-term solution. On the other hand, if time is not an issue and all parties are willing, you can take your time, gather more information, and seek more appropriate options. Task and People Orientation Every negotiation involves some sort of task and the interaction of two or more people or groups of people (parties). These form the "framework" used to visualize and understand the differences between the five styles we commonly use to negotiate. An additional step in selecting a negotiation style that is most appropriate for the situation is determining whether the task or the people or both are important. Task Orientation Depending on the stakes and situation, this approach places more importance on reaching an outcome, solution, or resolution. High task orientation means we
The CNS reflects high interest in people and task orientation. This strategy depends heavily on each party's collaborative efforts and desire to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome. When we cooperate with others, we generate options that are valued by all parties and the solutions are usually better than what we could have created on our own. When applying the CNS, you trade positions (what you want) for interests (why you want it) and find complementary differences and similarities that can help everyone move toward a mutually satisfying agreement. Additionally, it allows you to choose negotiation strategies which may guide your actions to settle, insist, comply or evade. The first three steps of the CNS process help you plan for the negotiation. The last two steps of the CNS process will help you execute the negotiation. CNS rests on a skill set that includes open communications, active listening, and critical thinking. These skills are needed for parties to understand perceptions of events, priorities, concerns, fears, and any other piece of information that helps in the search for viable solutions. Settle Strategy ("Let's split the difference and call it a day.") This strategy is used when task and people orientation are similar or equal and there is a desire to develop a compromising solution. Use this style when there is little chance of getting everything you want but a solution is necessary. CNS - Positions In this final step, the best idea from all presented is selected by all negotiating parties. CNS - Interest Assess the position. Why do you think the position from step one is the one you need? Estimate why you think your counterpart desires his/her position. CNS - BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) Determine your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and what motivates you to engage in negotiations and estimate your counterpart's BATNA. A BATNA is an alternative that, should negotiations fail, you are willing and able to execute without the opposite negotiator's participation or
permission. Understanding your BATNA and the opposite's BATNA will help you determine when or if you should walk away from the negotiation table. In order to formulate a practical BATNA, you must have both the resources and the will to execute this alternative on your own without any assistance. CNS - Brainstorming Suspend judgement and develop a list of ideas and/or option proposals. Note: Set ground rules that this is only a brainstorm and no party is committed to any option put forward. If you cannot come to any kind of agreement in this step, then you may need to go back and start again with positions. CNS - Solutions In this final step, the best idea from all presented is selected by all negotiating parties. readiness and ripeness readiness Readiness is the capacity of parties to decide it is in their best interest to negotiate an agreement rather than to continue a dispute. Even when both parties decide to negotiate, failure to deal sensitively with each other can jeopardize negotiations. When preparing to negotiate, use these questions to examine your readiness: Are these issues negotiable? Am I willing to make compromises and give some things up? Do I want to resolve these issues equitably? Am I willing to work to keep the channels of communication open? If any of the principal negotiators are not ready to negotiate, progress comes to a halt and conflict may reemerge. Although you may be ready to negotiate, the situation itself may or may not be ripe for negotiation.
