Register to read the introduction…
Howard and Korver’s decision analysis model and hybrid model presented in class
. Howard and Korver: xxiii. Clarify 7. Use value neutral language 8. Separate prudential, legal and ethical issues 9. Frame the questions in terms of relationships (stakeholders) xxiv. Create alternatives: ID acceptable, appealing and possibly transformative options 10. Consider three degrees of response: refrain/comply, elevate or transform xxv. Evaluate the alternatives: ID the alternatives that are ethical and defensible 11. Evaluate alternatives using your personal code or an ethical role model 12. Test for reciprocity (Would you want this done to you?) 13. Test for universality (Would you want everyone doing this?) . Examine the Issue xxvi. Separate prudential, legal and ethical issues (look for conflicts of interest, potential gain for you, etc.) xxvii. Identify stakeholders and frame the issue in terms of relationships . Create alternatives: ID acceptable, appealing and possibly transformative options (“widen your options”) xxviii. Consider three basic choices: exit, loyalty or voice xxix. Script what you would say if you chose “voice” . Evaluate alternatives that are ethical and defensible and choose xxx. Evaluate alternatives in terms of your personal code xxxi. Evaluate alternatives in terms of an ethical role model xxxii. Test for reciprocity (Would you want this done to you?) xxxiii. Test for universality (Would you want everyone doing this?) 11. Developing a personal code . Draft… Test… Refine xxxiv. I believe [this]… always. xxxv. Or… I believe [this]… except when… . This is what Howard and Korver would tell you: xxxvi. Focus on ethical topics xxxvii. Keep your list under 20 (under 10?) xxxviii. Keep your list clear of prudential items (remember, this is not a check-list for how to be a better person, it is a Personal Ethical Code) . This is what I would tell you: xxxix. Write your code any way you choose that makes sense to you. xl. It is an excellent exercise but not a course requirement. 12. Heath Brothers . WRAP: xli. Widen Your Options 14. Narrow framing leads us to overlook options. We need to uncover new options and consider them simultaneously through multitracking xlii. Reality-Test Your Assumptions 15. Confirmation bias leads us to collect skewed, self-serving information. We must ask disconfirming questions and zoom out and zoom in, experimenting with our decisions to see if they will work out. xliii. Attain Distance Before Deciding 16. …show more content…
Short-term emotion tempts us to make choices that are bad in the long term. We need to attain distance by shifting perspective: What would I tell my best friend to do? Or, what would my successor do? xliv. Prepare To Be Wrong 17. We are overconfident, thinking we know how the future will unfold when we really don’t. Prepare for bad outcomes . DECISIVE xlv. The Four Villains of Decision Making: 18. Narrow Framing: defining our choices too narrowly, seeing them in binary terms. Black and white. Right and wrong. It makes you miss options. 19. Confirmation Bias: developing a quick belief about a situation and then seeking out information that bolsters our belief. 20. Short-Term Emotion: often tempts you to make the wrong decision. 21. Overconfidence: overconfidence in how the future will unfold.
13. Mind Traps from Hammonds et al. (see slides and lecture notes)
. When we make decisions, we are at the mercy of our minds which are very capable of sabotage. xlvi. These mind traps are heuristics, or unconscious routines we utilize in order to manage the complexity of decision making. . Hidden traps: xlvii. Anchoring: first in information gets weighted favorable (primacy effect, recency effect) xlviii. Status-quo: We show bias in favor of the status-quo xlix. Sunk cost: Present decisions continue to justify past decision (even bad ones) l. Confirming Evidence: we are more engaged by things we like li. Framing: We are risk-aversive in terms of gains and risk-seeking to avoid loss. 22. Power of first impressions 23. Primacy Effect 24. Recency Effect 25. Interviews are a good example – lasting impressions are taken from the beginning and end (plus order of interviews counts) 26. The Devil you know… (change processes) 27. Stop throwing good money after bad… you’ve taken 4 courses in your minor and realize that it is damaging your grades in your major but since you
. Howard and Korver: xxiii. Clarify 7. Use value neutral language 8. Separate prudential, legal and ethical issues 9. Frame the questions in terms of relationships (stakeholders) xxiv. Create alternatives: ID acceptable, appealing and possibly transformative options 10. Consider three degrees of response: refrain/comply, elevate or transform xxv. Evaluate the alternatives: ID the alternatives that are ethical and defensible 11. Evaluate alternatives using your personal code or an ethical role model 12. Test for reciprocity (Would you want this done to you?) 13. Test for universality (Would you want everyone doing this?) . Examine the Issue xxvi. Separate prudential, legal and ethical issues (look for conflicts of interest, potential gain for you, etc.) xxvii. Identify stakeholders and frame the issue in terms of relationships . Create alternatives: ID acceptable, appealing and possibly transformative options (“widen your options”) xxviii. Consider three basic choices: exit, loyalty or voice xxix. Script what you would say if you chose “voice” . Evaluate alternatives that are ethical and defensible and choose xxx. Evaluate alternatives in terms of your personal code xxxi. Evaluate alternatives in terms of an ethical role model xxxii. Test for reciprocity (Would you want this done to you?) xxxiii. Test for universality (Would you want everyone doing this?) 11. Developing a personal code . Draft… Test… Refine xxxiv. I believe [this]… always. xxxv. Or… I believe [this]… except when… . This is what Howard and Korver would tell you: xxxvi. Focus on ethical topics xxxvii. Keep your list under 20 (under 10?) xxxviii. Keep your list clear of prudential items (remember, this is not a check-list for how to be a better person, it is a Personal Ethical Code) . This is what I would tell you: xxxix. Write your code any way you choose that makes sense to you. xl. It is an excellent exercise but not a course requirement. 12. Heath Brothers . WRAP: xli. Widen Your Options 14. Narrow framing leads us to overlook options. We need to uncover new options and consider them simultaneously through multitracking xlii. Reality-Test Your Assumptions 15. Confirmation bias leads us to collect skewed, self-serving information. We must ask disconfirming questions and zoom out and zoom in, experimenting with our decisions to see if they will work out. xliii. Attain Distance Before Deciding 16. …show more content…
Short-term emotion tempts us to make choices that are bad in the long term. We need to attain distance by shifting perspective: What would I tell my best friend to do? Or, what would my successor do? xliv. Prepare To Be Wrong 17. We are overconfident, thinking we know how the future will unfold when we really don’t. Prepare for bad outcomes . DECISIVE xlv. The Four Villains of Decision Making: 18. Narrow Framing: defining our choices too narrowly, seeing them in binary terms. Black and white. Right and wrong. It makes you miss options. 19. Confirmation Bias: developing a quick belief about a situation and then seeking out information that bolsters our belief. 20. Short-Term Emotion: often tempts you to make the wrong decision. 21. Overconfidence: overconfidence in how the future will unfold.
13. Mind Traps from Hammonds et al. (see slides and lecture notes)
. When we make decisions, we are at the mercy of our minds which are very capable of sabotage. xlvi. These mind traps are heuristics, or unconscious routines we utilize in order to manage the complexity of decision making. . Hidden traps: xlvii. Anchoring: first in information gets weighted favorable (primacy effect, recency effect) xlviii. Status-quo: We show bias in favor of the status-quo xlix. Sunk cost: Present decisions continue to justify past decision (even bad ones) l. Confirming Evidence: we are more engaged by things we like li. Framing: We are risk-aversive in terms of gains and risk-seeking to avoid loss. 22. Power of first impressions 23. Primacy Effect 24. Recency Effect 25. Interviews are a good example – lasting impressions are taken from the beginning and end (plus order of interviews counts) 26. The Devil you know… (change processes) 27. Stop throwing good money after bad… you’ve taken 4 courses in your minor and realize that it is damaging your grades in your major but since you