Phase 2 due in 36 hours

Electronic Brainstorming

Electronic brainstorming helps avoid:

• Production blocking
• Evaluation apprehension

4-5

© 2016 Cengage Learning

*

The first disadvantage that electronic brainstorming overcomes is production blocking, which occurs when you have an idea, but you have to wait to share it because someone else is already describing an idea to the group. This short delay may make you forget your idea or decide that it really wasn’t worth sharing. But with electronic brainstorming, production blocking doesn’t happen. With all group members seated at computers, everyone can type in their ideas whenever they occur. There’s no waiting your turn to be heard by the group.

The second disadvantage that electronic brainstorming overcomes is evaluation apprehension, that is, being afraid of what others will think of your ideas. However, with electronic brainstorming, all ideas are anonymous. When you type in an idea and hit the Enter key to share it with the group, group members see only the idea. Furthermore, many brainstorming software programs also protect anonymity by displaying ideas in random order. So, if you laugh maniacally when you type, “Cut top management’s pay by 50 percent!” and then hit the Enter key, it won’t show up immediately on everyone’s screen. This makes it doubly difficult to determine whose comments belong to whom.

Studies show that electronic brainstorming is much more productive than face-to-face brainstorming. Compared to regular four-person brainstorming groups, the same-sized electronic brainstorming groups produce 25 to 50 percent more ideas. Compared to regular 12-person brainstorming groups, the same-sized electronic brainstorming groups produce 200 percent more ideas!

*

DuPont Headquarters, Wilmington, Delaware

The DuPont company got its start when Eleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours fled France’s revolution to come to America, where, in 1802, he built a mill on the Brandywine River in Wilmington, Delaware, to produce blasting powder used in guns and artillery. In 1902, E.I. du Pont’s great-grandson, Pierre S. du Pont, along with two cousins, bought out other family members and began transforming DuPont into the world’s leading chemical company. In its second century, DuPont Corporation would go on to develop Freon for refrigerators and air conditioners; nylon, which is used in everything from women’s hose to car tires; Lucite, a ubiquitous clear plastic used in baths, furniture, car lights, and phone screens; Teflon, famous for its nonstick properties in cookware and coatings; Dacron, a wash-and-wear, wrinkle-free polyester; Lycra, the stretchy, clingy fabric used in activewear and swimwear; Nome, a fire-resistant fiber used by firefighters, race car drivers, and to reduce heat in motors and electrical equipment; Corona, a high-end countertop used in homes and offices; and Kevlar, the “bulletproof” material used in body armor worn by police and soldiers, in helmets, and for vehicle protection.

You became DuPont’s CEO right as “the world fell apart” at the height of the world financial crisis. Fortunately, you had early warning from sharply declining sales in DuPont’s titanium dioxide division, which makes white pigment used in paints, sunscreen, and food coloring. Sales trends there can be counted on to indicate what will happen next in the general economy, so you and your leadership team began working with the heads of all of DuPont’s divisions to make contingency plans in case sales dropped by 5 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, or more. Many DuPont managers thought you were crazy, until the downturn hit. It was difficult, but with plans to cut 6,500 employees at the ready, you were prepared when sales dropped by 20 percent at the end of the year. But when that wasn’t enough, salaried and professional employees were asked to voluntarily take unpaid time off and an additional 2,000 jobs were eliminated. In all, these moves reduced expenses by a billion dollars a year. But one place you refused to cut was DuPont’s research budget, which remained at $1.4 billion per year.

One of the ways in which the Board of Directors measures company performance is by comparing DuPont’s total stock returns to 19 peer companies. Over the last quarter century, DuPont has regularly ended up in the bottom third of the list. This makes clear that you have one overriding goal: to restore DuPont’s prestige, performance, and competitiveness. The question, of course, is how?

Before deciding how to restore DuPont’s edge, there are some big questions to consider. First, given sustained weak performance over the last quarter century, do you need to step back and consider DuPont’s purpose, that is, the reason that you’re in business? After transitioning from blasting powder to chemicals, DuPont’s slogan became, “Better things for better living . . . through chemistry.” Is it time, again, to reconsider what DuPont is all about? Or, instead of an intense focus on DuPont’s purpose, would it make more sense to make lots of plans and lots of bets so that “a thousand flowers can bloom”? In other words, would it be better to keep options open by making small, simultaneous investments in many alternative plans? Then, when one or a few of these plans emerge as likely winners, you invest even more in these plans while discontinuing or reducing investment in the others. Finally, planning is a double-edged sword. If done right, it brings about tremendous increases in individual and organizational performance. But if done wrong, it can have just the opposite effect and harm individual and organizational performance. With that in mind, what kind of goals should you set for the company? Should you focus on finances, product development, or people? And should you have an overriding goal, or should you have separate goals for different parts of the company?

If you were the CEO at DuPont, what would you do?

*

Planning is choosing a goal and developing a method or strategy to achieve that goal.

Are you one of those naturally organized people who always makes a daily to-do list, writes everything down so you won’t forget, and never misses a deadline because you keep track of everything with a scheduling app? Or are you one of those flexible, creative, go-with-the-flow people who dislike planning and organizing because it restricts your freedom, energy, and performance? Some people are natural planners. They love it and can only see the benefits of planning. However, others dislike planning, and can only see its disadvantages. It turns out that both views are correct. Planning has advantages and disadvantages.

*

Planning offers the benefits, as shown on this slide.

First, managers and employees put forth greater effort when following a plan. Take two workers. Instruct one to “do his or her best” to increase production, and instruct the other to achieve a 2 percent increase in production each month. Research shows that the one with the specific plan will work harder.

Second, planning leads to persistence, that is, working hard for long periods. In fact, planning encourages persistence even when there may be little chance of short-term success.

The third benefit of planning is direction. Plans encourage managers and employees to direct their persistent efforts toward activities that help accomplish their goals and away from activities that don’t.

The fourth benefit of planning is that it encourages the development of task strategies. After selecting a goal, it’s natural to ask, “How can it be achieved?”

Finally, perhaps the most compelling benefit of planning is that it has been proven to work for both companies and individuals. On average, companies with plans have larger profits and grow much faster than companies that don’t. The same holds true for individual managers and employees. There is no better way to improve the performance of the people who work in a company than to have them set goals and develop strategies for achieving those goals.

*

Despite the significant benefits associated with planning, planning is not a cure-all. Plans won’t fix all organizational problems. In fact, many management authors and consultants believe that planning can harm companies in several ways.

The first pitfall of planning is that it can impede change and prevent or slow needed adaptation. Sometimes companies become so committed to achieving the goals set forth in their plans, or they can become so intent on following the strategies and tactics spelled out in them, that they fail to see that their plans aren’t working or that their goals need to change.

The second pitfall of planning is that it can create a false sense of certainty. Planners sometimes feel that they know exactly what the future holds for their competitors, their suppliers, and their companies. However, all plans are based on assumptions.

The third pitfall of planning is the detachment of planners. In theory, strategic planners and top-level managers are supposed to focus on the big picture and not concern themselves with the details of implementation, that is, carrying out the plan. According to management professor Henry Mintzberg, detachment leads planners to plan for things they don’t understand. Plans are not meant to be abstract theories. They are meant to be guidelines for action.

As depicted in Exhibit 4.1, planning consists of five important steps.

*

*

Step 1: Set Goals

The first step in planning is to set goals. Goals need to be specific and challenging, to provide a target for which to aim and a standard against which to measure to success.

One way of writing effective goals is to use the SMART guidelines.

*

Step 2:
Goal commitment is the determination to achieve a goal. Commitment to achieve a goal is not automatic. Managers and workers must choose to commit themselves to a goal.

So how can managers bring about goal commitment? The most popular approach is to set goals participatively. Rather than assigning goals to workers (“Johnson, you’ve got ‘til Tuesday of next week to redesign the flux capacitor so it gives us 10 percent more output”), managers and employees choose goals together. The goals are more likely to be realistic and attainable if employees participate in setting them.

Another technique for gaining commitment to a goal is to make the goal public.

Another way to increase goal commitment is to obtain top management’s support. Top management can show support for a plan or program by providing funds, speaking publicly about the plan, or participating in the plan itself.

*

An effective action plan lists the how, who, what, and when for accomplishing a goal.

*

The fourth step in planning is to track progress toward goal achievement. There are two accepted methods of tracking progress. The first is to set proximal goals and distal goals. Proximal goals are short-term goals or subgoals, whereas distal goals are long-term or primary goals. The idea behind setting proximal goals is that they may be more motivating and rewarding than waiting to achieve far-off distal goals.

The second method of tracking progress is to gather and provide performance feedback. Regular, frequent performance feedback allows workers and managers to track their progress toward goal achievement and make adjustments in effort, direction, and strategies.

Exhibit 4.2 shows the impact of feedback on safety behavior at a large bakery company with a worker safety record that was two and a half times worse than industry average.

*

*

Because action plans are sometimes poorly conceived and goals sometimes turn out to not be achievable, the last step in developing an effective plan is to maintain flexibility.

One method of maintaining flexibility while planning is to adopt an options-based approach. The goal of options-based planning is to keep options open by making small, simultaneous investments in many options or plans. Then when one or a few of these plans emerge as likely winners, you investment even more in these plans while discontinuing or reducing investment in the others. In part, options-based planning is the opposite of traditional planning. For example, the purpose of an action plan is to commit people and resources to a particular course of action. However, the purpose of options-based planning is to leave those commitments open. Holding options open gives you choices and choices give you flexibility.

Another method of maintaining flexibility while planning is to take a learning-based approach. In contrast to traditional planning, which assumes that initial action plans are correct and will lead to success, learning-based planning assumes that action plans need to be continually tested, changed, and improved as companies learn better ways of achieving goals. Because the purpose is constant improvement, learning-based planning not only encourages flexibility in action plans, but it also encourages frequent reassessment and revision of organizational goals.

*

Planning works best when the goals and action plans at the bottom and middle of the organization support the goals and action plans at the top of the organization. Exhibit 4.3 illustrates this planning continuity.

As shown in Exhibit 4.4, top management is responsible for developing long-term strategic plans that make clear how the company will serve customers and position itself against competitors in the next two to five years.

*

*

Top management is responsible for developing long-term strategic plans that make clear how the company will serve customers and position itself against competitors in the next two to five years. A purpose statement, which is often referred to as an organizational mission or vision, is a statement of a company’s purpose or reason for existing. The strategic objective, which flows from the purpose, is a more specific goal that unifies company-wide efforts, stretches and challenges the organization, and possesses a finish line and a time frame.

*

Middle management is responsible for developing and carrying out tactical plans to accomplish the organization’s mission. Tactical plans specify how a company will use resources, budgets, and people to accomplish specific goals within its mission. Whereas strategic plans and objectives are used to focus company efforts over the next two to five years, tactical plans and objectives are used to direct behavior, efforts, and attention over the next six months to two years.

Management by objectives (see the feature what really works: Management by Objectives) is a management technique often used to develop and carry out tactical plans. Management by objectives, or MBO, is a four-step process in which managers and their employees (1) discuss possible goals, (2) participatively select goals that are challenging, attainable, and consistent with the company’s overall goals, (3) jointly develop tactical plans that lead to accomplishment of tactical goals and objectives, and (4) meet regularly to review progress toward accomplishment of those goals.

*

Lower-level managers are responsible for developing and carrying out operational plans, which are the day-to-day plans for producing or delivering the organization’s products and services. Single-use plans deal with unique, one-time-only events. Unlike single-use plans that are created, carried out, and then never used again, standing plans save managers time because once the plans are created, they can be used repeatedly to handle frequently recurring events.

*

Standing plans save managers time because once the plans are created, they can be used repeatedly to handle frequently recurring events. If you encounter a problem that you’ve seen before, someone in your company has probably written a standing plan that explains how to address it. Using this plan, rather than reinventing the wheel, will save you time. There are three kinds of standing plans: policies, procedures, and rules and regulations.

Exhibit 4.5 shows the operating budget outlays for the U.S. federal government.

*

*

On average, companies that effectively use MBO outproduce those that don’t by an incredible 44.6 percent. And in companies where top management is committed to MBO, that is, where objective setting begins at the top, the average increase in performance is an even more astounding 56.5 percent. By contrast, when top management does not participate in or support MBO, the average increase in productivity is only 6.1 percent. In all, there is a 97 percent chance that companies that use MBO will outperform those that don’t! Thus, MBO can make a very big difference to the companies that use it.

The first step in decision making is identifying and defining the problem. A problem exists when there is a gap between a desired state (what managers want) and an existing state (the situation that managers are facing).

Decision criteria are the standards used to guide judgments and decisions. Typically, the more criteria that a potential solution meets, the better that solution should be.

After identifying decision criteria, the next step is deciding which criteria are more or less important.

After identifying and weighting the criteria that will guide the decision-making process, the next step is to identify possible courses of action that could solve the problem. In general, at this step the idea is to generate as many alternatives as possible.

The next step is to systematically evaluate each alternative against each criterion. Because of the amount of information that must be collected, this step can take much longer and be much more expensive than other steps in the decision-making process.

The final step in the decision-making process is to compute the optimal decision by determining each alternative’s optimal value. This is done by multiplying the rating for each criterion (step 5) by the weight for that criterion (step 3), and then summing those scores for each alternative course of action that you generated (step 4).

*

*

The first step in decision making is identifying and defining the problem. A problem exists when there is a gap between a desired state--what managers want--and an existing state--the situation that the managers are facing.

The existence of a gap between an existing state and a desired state is no guarantee that managers will make decisions to solve problems. Three things must occur for this to happen. First, managers have to be aware of the gap. They have to know there is a problem before they can begin solving it.

Second, being aware of the gap between a desired state and an existing state isn’t enough to begin the decision-making process. You also have to be motivated to reduce the gap.

Finally, it’s not enough to be aware of a problem and be motivated to solve it. You must also have the knowledge, skills, abilities, and resources to fix the problem.

*

After identifying decision criteria, the next step is deciding which criteria are more or less important.

*

Although there are numerous math models for weighting decision criteria, all require the decision maker to provide an initial ranking of the decision criteria. Two methods are absolute and relative comparisons.

Exhibit 4.7 shows the absolute weights that someone buying a car might use.

*

Exhibit 4.8 show six criteria that someone might use when buying a house.

*

Exhibit 4.9 shows how each of 10 proposed office locations faired on each of the 12 criteria developed.

*

*

In general, managers who diligently complete all six steps of the rational decision-making model will make better decisions than those who don’t. So, when they can, managers should try to follow the steps in the rational decision-making model, especially for big decisions with long-range consequences.

However, it’s highly doubtful that rational decision making can help managers “choose optimal solutions that provide maximum benefits to their organizations.” The terms “optimal” and “maximum” suggest that rational decision making leads to perfect or near-perfect decisions. Of course, for managers to make perfect decisions, they have to operate in perfect worlds with no real-world constraints.

It never works like that in the real world. Managers face time and money constraints. They often don’t have time to make extensive lists of decision criteria. And, they often don’t have the resources to test all possible solutions against all possible criteria.

*

According to a study reported in Fortune magazine, 91 percent of U.S. companies use teams and groups to solve specific problems (i.e., make decisions).

When done properly, group decision making can lead to much better decisions than individual decision making. In fact, numerous studies show that groups consistently outperform individuals on complex tasks. Let’s explore the advantages and pitfalls of group decision making, and see how the following group decision making methods--structured conflict, the nominal group technique, the Delphi technique, the stepladder technique, and electronic brainstorming--can be used to improve decision making.

*

Although groups can do a better job of defining problems and generating alternative solutions, group decision making is subject to pitfalls. One possible pitfall is groupthink, which occurs in highly cohesive groups when group members feel intense pressure to agree with each other.

Although groups can do a better job of defining problems and generating alternative solutions, group decision making is subject to some pitfalls that can quickly erase these gains. One possible pitfall is groupthink. Groupthink occurs in highly cohesive groups when group members feel intense pressure not to disagree with each other, so that the group can approve a proposed solution. Because groupthink leads to consideration of a limited number of solutions, and because it restricts discussion of any considered solutions, it usually results in poor decisions. Groupthink is most likely to occur under the following conditions:

• The group is insulated from others with different perspectives
• The group leader begins by expressing strong preference for a particular decision
• There is no established procedure for systematically defining problems and exploring alternatives
• Group members have similar backgrounds and experiences

*

A second potential problem with group decision making is that it takes considerable time. It takes time to reconcile schedules (so that group members can meet). Furthermore, it’s the rare group that consistently holds productive task-oriented meetings to effectively work through the decision process. Some of the most common complaints about meetings (and thus group decision making) are that the meeting’s purpose is unclear, meeting participants are unprepared, critical people are absent or late, conversation doesn’t stay focused on the problem, and no one follows up on the decisions that were made.

A third possible pitfall is that sometimes just one or two people dominate group discussion, restricting consideration of different problem definitions and alternative solutions. Another possible problem is that, unlike their own decisions and actions, group members often don’t feel accountable for the decisions made and actions taken by the group.

While these pitfalls can lead to poor decision making, this doesn’t mean that managers should avoid using groups to make decisions. When done properly, group decision making can lead to much better decisions. The pitfalls of group decision making are not inevitable. Most of them can be overcome through good management. Let’s see how structured conflict, the nominal group technique, the Delphi technique, the stepladder technique, and electronic brainstorming help managers improve group decision making.

*

Most people view conflict negatively. However, the right kind of conflict can lead to much better group decision making. C-type conflict, or cognitive conflict, focuses on problem- and issue-related differences of opinion. In c-type conflict, group members disagree because their different experiences and expertise lead them to different views of the problem and its potential solutions. C-type conflict is also characterized by a willingness to examine, compare, and reconcile those differences to produce the best possible solution.

By contrast, a-type conflict, meaning affective conflict, refers to the emotional reactions that can occur when disagreements become personal rather than professional. A-type conflict often results in hostility, anger, resentment, distrust, cynicism, and apathy. So, unlike c-type conflict, a-type conflict undermines team effectiveness by preventing teams from engaging in the kinds of activities, such as c-type conflict, that are critical to team effectiveness. Examples of a-type conflict statements would be, “your idea," “our idea,” "my department," "you don't know what you are talking about," or "you don't understand our situation." Rather than focusing on issues and ideas, these statements focus on individuals.

*

“Nominal” means “in name only.” Accordingly, the nominal group technique received its name because it begins with “quiet time,” in which group members independently write down as many problem definitions and alternative solutions as possible. In other words, the nominal group technique begins by having group members act as individuals. After the “quiet time,” the group leader asks each group member to share one idea at a time with the group. As they are read aloud, ideas are posted on flip charts or wall boards for all to see. This step continues until all ideas have been shared. The next step involves a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these ideas. The nominal group technique closes with a second “quiet time,” in which group members independently rank the ideas presented. Group members then read their rankings aloud, and the idea with the highest average rank is selected.

The nominal group technique improves group decision making by decreasing a-type conflict. However, in doing so, it also restricts c-type conflict. Consequently, the nominal group technique typically produces poorer-quality decisions than do the devil’s advocacy or dialectical inquiry approaches. Nonetheless, more than 80 studies have found that nominal groups produce better-quality ideas than traditional group decisions.

*

The Delphi technique is a decision-making method in which a panel of experts respond to questions and to each other until reaching agreement on an issue. The first step is to assemble a panel of experts. However, unlike other approaches to group decision making, it isn’t necessary to bring the panel together in one place. Since the Delphi technique does not require the experts to leave their offices or disrupt their schedules, they are more likely to participate in the process. The anonymity also helps deter the negative effects of groups on this process.

The second step is to create a questionnaire consisting of a series of open-ended questions for the experts.

In the third step, panel members’ written responses are analyzed, summarized, and fed back to the panel for reactions until panel members reach agreement. Then, their written responses are summarized and typed into a brief report (no more than two pages).

The summary is then sent to the panel members, who are asked to explain why they agreed or disagreed with the conclusions from the first round of questions. Asking why they agreed or disagreed is important, because it helps uncover panel members’ unstated assumptions and beliefs. Again, this process of summarizing panel feedback and obtaining reactions to that feedback continues until panel members reach agreement.

The Delphi technique is not an approach that managers should use for common decisions. Because it is a time-consuming, labor-intensive, and expensive process, the Delphi technique is best reserved for important long-term issues and problems. Nonetheless, the judgments and conclusions obtained from it are typically better than those you would get from one expert.

*

There is a 58 percent chance that decision makers who use the devil’s advocacy approach to criticize and question their solutions will produce decisions that are better than decisions based on the advice of experts. There is a 55 percent chance that decision makers who use the dialectical inquiry approach to criticize and question their solutions will produce decisions that are better than decisions based on the advice of experts.

Considering negative consequences, such as with a devil’s advocate or via critical inquiry, means pointing out the potential disadvantages of proposed solutions. There is an 86 percent chance that groups that consider negative consequences will produce better decisions than those that don’t.

*

The stepladder technique begins with discussion between two group members, each of whom presents to the other their thoughts, ideas, and recommendations before jointly making a tentative decision. At each step, as other group members are added to the discussion one at a time (i.e., like a stepladder), the existing group members take the time to listen to each new member’s thoughts, ideas, and recommendations. The group then shares the ideas and suggestions that it had already considered, discusses the new and old ideas, and then makes a tentative decision about what to do. This process (new member’s ideas are heard, group shares previous ideas and suggestion, discussion is held, tentative group decision is made) continues until each group member’s ideas have been discussed.

For the stepladder technique to work, group members must have enough time to consider the problem or decision on their own, to present their ideas to the group, and to thoroughly discuss all ideas and alternatives with the group at each step. Rushing through each step destroys the advantages of this technique. Also, groups must make sure that subsequent group members are completely unaware of previous discussions and suggestions. This will ensure that each member who joins the group brings truly independent thoughts and suggestions, thus, greatly increasing the chances of making better decisions.

As shown in Exhibit 4.10, the stepladder technique begins with discussion between two group members who share their thoughts, ideas, and recommendations before jointly making a tentative decision.

*

*

*

The first disadvantage that electronic brainstorming overcomes is production blocking, which occurs when you have an idea, but you have to wait to share it because someone else is already describing an idea to the group. This short delay may make you forget your idea or decide that it really wasn’t worth sharing. But with electronic brainstorming, production blocking doesn’t happen. With all group members seated at computers, everyone can type in their ideas whenever they occur. There’s no waiting your turn to be heard by the group.

The second disadvantage that electronic brainstorming overcomes is evaluation apprehension, that is, being afraid of what others will think of your ideas. However, with electronic brainstorming, all ideas are anonymous. When you type in an idea and hit the Enter key to share it with the group, group members see only the idea. Furthermore, many brainstorming software programs also protect anonymity by displaying ideas in random order. So, if you laugh maniacally when you type, “Cut top management’s pay by 50 percent!” and then hit the Enter key, it won’t show up immediately on everyone’s screen. This makes it doubly difficult to determine whose comments belong to whom.

Studies show that electronic brainstorming is much more productive than face-to-face brainstorming. Compared to regular four-person brainstorming groups, the same-sized electronic brainstorming groups produce 25 to 50 percent more ideas. Compared to regular 12-person brainstorming groups, the same-sized electronic brainstorming groups produce 200 percent more ideas!

Exhibit 4.11 shows what the typical electronic brainstorming group member will see on his or her computer screen.

*

*

Teresa Carleo, owner of Plant Fantasies, is the gardener for such well-known New York City properties as the Trump Organization, John Jay College, and Jack Resnick & Sons. In landscaping, success often boils down to big decisions over little details. Although some decisions involve plant colors and types, others involve complex negotiation with people, such as when Plant Fantasies builds designs created by outside landscape architects. Despite Carleo’s confidence in her own decision making, the Plant Fantasies owner understands the benefits of empowering others. But regardless of who makes decisions, Carleo expects all her employees to share her high standards for quality.