Shoemaker and Russo (in Hoch) discuss
the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to
guard against them. Discuss three ways you can avoid "framing
traps" and provide a detailed example of each from your life
experience. Could you have framed each situation differently? What did
the exercise teach you about complex decision-making? What additional tools or
"frames" might have helped you through the process? How was
"risk" a factor in your examples? What did you learn about yourself
through this exercise?
Frame blindness is when we are unaware of the frames that we are using
and are unable to see a problem though a different lens (Hoch, 2001). An
example of frame blindness would be a company that switches vendors to create
marketing and promotional items because their ordering process is streamlined
and can be ordered in bulk making it easier for the logistics department to
ship out the items. However, the items are too expensive for individual store locations
to purchase. In this example the manager had frame blindness because they were
only looking through the frame of one stakeholder, the logistics department,
but was not thinking about the burden of cost on individual locations.
Anchoring:
One area that I fall into the trap of frame blindness is through
anchoring other people’s opinions or perspectives and take them as my own. Hoch
(2001) warns that anchoring can lead to a trap in decision making because we
take someone else’s opinion or perspective and use this as our own starting
point. The trap with this is that this person may be totally off base and we
did not completely vet their perspective or frame before implementing the
decision.
An example of when I fell into
the trap of anchoring was when I was student teaching. While student teaching I
would often think about how my co-teacher (I’ll call him Mr. Smith) would
approve or disapprove of my lesson. Before implementing the lesson I would
often ask for his advice. Although Mr. Smith often gave me great advice, he
would often tell me to teach using his style, and discouraged me from changing
the status quo. Mr. Smith relied heavily on worksheets, and call and response
techniques. He often told me to simplify my lessons and to take out a lot of
the activities that I thought would be fun and meaningful for the students. Looking
back, I was noticing signs of frame misfit (Hoch, 2001). When I used Mr.
Smith’s techniques I felt like I was a robot; I was bored and my students were
bored. The more I tried to be more like
Mr. Smith the more a voice inside of me told me that something wasn’t working. Towards
the end of my student teaching I decided to do things my way. At this point I
was struggling with a lot of self-doubt, my professors were giving me feedback
during their observations that my students weren’t meeting the objectives, and
one of them questioned me if I still wanted to teach. At this point, I had
nothing to lose. Although I ran the risk of upsetting Mr. Smith, it was a
greater risk to stay with the status quo than to try something new. I rearranged the classroom so the students sat
in groups instead of rows. I created short introduction lessons and had student
work in groups and then come back together as a class to review the learning.
By doing this I was able to help guide students in their learning my moving
between groups. My students were engaged, I was having enjoying the experience
and I was receiving positive feedback from Mr. Smith and my professors. This
example taught me to be true to myself. I realized that there is more than one
way to get the job done, but if I was always trying to be like someone else I
would lose my authenticity and I wouldn’t achieve the desired results.
Although I learned a lot about myself through my example with student
teaching, I wish would have thought of my own perspective first, and ask for
guidance and then decide what would or wouldn’t work for me (Soll, 2015). In
this case I also learned to listen to my instincts. When the voice inside of me
tells me that something isn’t working I now stop and ask myself why and assess
the situation.
Recognizing Key Assumptions and
Emerging Frames:
An example of frame trap
that I have been recently discovering that I have been a victim of is assuming
that what was true in the past will be true in the future. With this, I am
learning to appreciate emerging frames and to recognize my personal assumptions,
and the assumptions of others (Hoch, 2001). For example, in almost every job
I’ve had in the past my co-workers and leadership valued and understood the
importance of teamwork. Although there was a hierarchy of positions and job
titles, overall it was assumed that those on the bottom can at some level
provide insight to those at the top. Leadership often initiated brainstorm
sessions, sought the advice of those on the ground and overall there were
opportunities for leader-follower exchange (Nourthouse, 2016).
About 6 months ago my office received a new
campus lead. I had assumed that what had been true in the past would be true in
the future. However, I found that through a series of events conversations that
the campus lead had a more directive leadership approach, and team work was not
as valued as it had been for me in the past. She assigned me tasks that she
expected to be completed per her directive. I was left feeling more like a
minion than a valued member of the team because I was not able be a part of the
planning process as I had been in the past, and I wasn’t able to complete tasks
the way I preferred to do them. One day I noticed that she seemed overwhelmed
and she was complaining that she had too much on her plate. Knowing that I
could complete some of these tasks for her I offered my assistance. She said, “No,
these tasks were assigned to me, so I’m responsible for them.” It was then that
I realized that she saw management and leadership through a much different lens/frame
than I do. I have to admit that it had been difficult not to take these
situations personally, but I am starting to come to terms with the fact that it
isn’t personal, but instead she has a different frame. She sees her leadership
role as the one to solve the problems and to delegate tasks that are within the
roles of a job title. However, the frame from which I see management and
leadership is that solving problems is a burden that can be distributed
appropriately amongst all members of the team, and that tasks can be assigned
to someone based off of their abilities to complete the task vs. their assigned
role or job title.
By recognizing the campus
lead’s assumptions I have come to the realization that I need to look for ways
to align our frames and to stretch my own frame (Hoch, 2001). I have to admit
that this has been very difficult for me because it has forced me to put aside
the personal value of team work, and humble myself. In this case I have a
constant inner battle of wondering how I can encourage the campus lead to
stretch her frame, while at the same time making sure that I am also putting
forth the effort to stretch my own frame. In this case, I think Hoch (2001)
would encourage me to speak to her frame. One way that I have been actively
working on to speak to her frame is to improve upon our personal relationship.
I have intentionally taken more time aside to chat with her about things
outside of work. This has allowed for both of us to get to know each other
better and ensure a positive working relationship. I have also asked for the
assistance of our director who has also noticed our frame disconnect. The
director has recently implemented for us to have weekly meetings for the two of
us to have the formal time to sit down and discuss issues surrounding our campus
and improve our communication. I am still working on solving this problem and
knowing when to stand my ground and assert myself, and when to stretch my
frame.
Regain control of the frame by
changing the Metaphor:
Hoch (2001) warns,
“whenever someone uses the descriptive imagery or a strong analogy to define a
problem to be on guard: you are about to be framed.” (p. 152). When I read
this, my mind went to politics. I see on the news how there seems to be a
battle of who has the best, or often the scariest, metaphor to drive their
political point home. However, as Hoch (2001) points out that to avoid frame
trap, that we need to challenge the metaphor and by looking at the alternative
message. The reason it is important to challenge these emotion invoking frames
is because, “These [frames] suggest that actors, responding to their own
incentives, shape agendas and control information flows to steer strategic
choices in a preferred direction.”(Kaplan, 2008, p. 729).
An example of when I used
changing metaphor was when I started managing the USO lounge at Andrews Air
Force Base. This USO was a very small lounge, very few people actually passed
through the lounge, and the volunteers felt that other USO showed favoritism
towards larger USOs. Coming into the position, I knew that the lounge had been
mismanaged. During one of our meetings one volunteer said, “We’re the ‘redheaded
stepchild’ no one cares what happens to us.” I realized very quickly that
according to their frame and the observations that I had made, this analogy had
merit. I also realized that I had to do what I could as a leader to change
their frame, get buy in, and improve our situation. I changed our metaphor by
announcing that we were instead “the little engine that could”. I promised them
that they would see major results in how the lounge was managed and most of all
they would feel appreciated. By reinforcing this new, positive metaphor I
started to get more buy in; volunteers were following policy, coming forward
with their ideas for improvements, and bringing in leads for people who might
be interested in volunteering.
The risk of this changing
metaphor was that I had to deliver on my promises. I had to live up to the
metaphor by climbing the mountain despite the setbacks that I encountered, and
constantly thanking the volunteers for their time and service to the USO.
Mainly, I had to lead by example. If I didn’t live up to my metaphor and
promises, then the volunteers would have quickly realized that I was all talk
and no action. Another risk I ran was agreeing that the volunteer’s metaphor
had some truth to it. The exact opposite could have been true and as a result I
would have made unnecessary changes. However, in this case I had some insight
into what had gone on previously and I had already made some observations about
what was happening before I asked for volunteer feedback. In this way I checked
my personal bias by getting feedback and input from others (Soll, 2015). This
situation has been the most influential to me as a leader. As a decision maker
it taught me that it takes time and patience to change people’s perspectives.
Although I was successful in the end, I received a lot of pushback in the
beginning. I learned that I had to, “appreciate people’s emotional commitment to their frames…people usually need
considerable time to adapt.” (Hoch, 2001, p. 154).
References:
Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making
under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729-752.
Northouse, P.G.(2016). Leadership: Theory and
practice. (7th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L., & Payne, J. W.
(2015). Outsmart your own biases. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Comments
Post a Comment