Yes, of course. I'll be glad to send copies of the McGraw-Hill module on
decision-making, along with materials on the ACES decision-making technique.
Several people have written to ask for copies. If anyone else wants them,
just send me a mailing address. Thanks.
Best,
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:49 AM
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Simon vs. Bolman & Deal
Larry:
Although I didn't ask, I'd like copies of the materials you offered Michael.
Fred Nickols
8810 Woodgate Manor Ct
Fort Myers, FL 33908
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-
>
DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Larry Pate
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 12:05 PM
> To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Simon vs. Bolman & Deal
>
> Michael Ayers asks a good question (re: Simon's concept of "design
> activity" versus Bolman & Deal's work on "reframing"), one that easily
> could take a good book to fully answer. However, briefly, I'll say
> that I think the value to Simon's distinction is that it tells us
> precisely why there is such
> variance in individual choices, and even inconsistencies within
> individuals
> in the choices we make. I see Simon as kind of this all-knowing, all-
> seeing
> guru who plops down on our planet for a time and who tells us in simple
> terms why we're both screwing up and getting it right. I don't mean that
> literally, of course, but metaphorically. He tells us people make
> different
> choices because they have different information and that they use the
> information they have differently. How more elegant can it get? No
> wonder
> Simon is a Nobel Laureate (for his work in decision-making).
>
> But, hearing Simon's distinction or even agreeing with it is not
> enough. If Kurt Lewin was correct that, "there is nothing so practical
> as a good theory," then the important thing is to go from
> understanding to action. Knowing the essential components of
> decision-making does not in itself prevent us from falling into common
> decision traps, or what has been called
> the "unwanted repetitive episodes" of faulty decision-making. And in that
> is where Bolman & Deal's work on reframing, and even some of my own work
> in
> developing the ACES Decision-Making Technique, adds value. In short,
> knowing is one thing; translating that knowledge into purposeful action is
> another.
>
> Thus, in answer to your question, no, I don't think Simon's
> distinction is any "better" or "worse" than what Bolman & Deal talk
> about, but I do think the focus is quite different. It's like Simon
> pointed the way and now Bolman & Deal are helping people to understand
> how to get there. The various "frames" they talk about are but
> examples of the seemingly endless varieties of possibilities. We
> might see it this way, we might see it that. By offering sets of
> possibilities people can see that their own initial frame is not the
> only one, and not even necessarily the "best" one. It's like living
> in Fargo your whole life and never knowing anything else (i.e.,
> single frame) versus having traveled all over the planet and seeing how
> lots
> of people in lots of different settings do things (i.e., multiple frames).
> That, to me, is the value in exploring various frames, even if the limited
> frames Bolman & Deal give us are at best only close approximations of any
> particular frame we might hold at any particular point in time.
>
> Imagine, for example, a police officer with 12 years police experience
> who hates his job, but who needs 20 years police service to receive
> full retirement benefits. He might believe that he has only two
> choices -- either stay for another 8 years in a job he hates or quit
> and lose his retirement. Now also imagine that a reason he thinks he
> can't quit is that he believes his wife will never move. With this
> "frame" he remains stuck in
> defensive avoidance (Janis & Mann), rather than moving toward vigilance.
> What would it take to get unstuck? The answer is, something that helps
> him
> change the frame. As it turns out, this is not just a made-up example
> it's
> a real issue that was raised in one of my decision-making seminars. By
> applying the ACES technique and looking at his assumptions ("wife will not
> move") and counter-assumptions ("wife will move"), the police officer was
> able to see things differently and get unstuck. While this example stems
> from use of the ACES technique, the same could be said for the work of
> Bolman & Deal or others who also encourage people to view things
> differently. As Karl Weick says when he talks about mutating metaphors,
> "Believing is seeing." The more we can understand about the various
> lenses
> people use for solving problems, the more prescriptive we can be when
> helping people make more informed choices.
>
> Finally, Michael also asks for a good reference on Simon's work, and I
> would suggest either the original source or the "Decision Making"
> module that Mike
> Driver and I wrote for McGraw-Hill. Send me a mailing address and I'll be
> glad to send a copy of the module to you. Same for my work on ACES, if
> you're interested.
>
> Best,
>
> Larry Pate
> Redondo Beach, California
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael Ayers
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 8:21 AM
> To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Who Else Comes to Mind
>
> Larry replied in part:
>
> <<This concept of "design activity" predates the more recent emphasis
> on "frame" and "frame theory" that Bolman & Deal, among and others,
> have written about.>>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
>
> In your mind, is the 'design activity' approach or nomenclature or
> mindset or structure (I'm trying to avoid using framework!) superior
> to the 'frame' approach?
>
> Let me answer my own question. I have only minimal exposure to Simon
> (I'd appreciate a pointer to a relatively lightweight reference). I
> have moderate exposure to Deal and Bolman. My sense is that the latter
> suggest the 're-framing' is a good thing, but then undermine that
> conclusion by offering
> a prepared-in-advance set of useful frames ... and perhaps unintentionally
> depriving the observer from creating her/his own set of useful frames.
>
> Michael A
>
> Michael Ayers
>
mbayers@earthlink.net <=>
www.TheCommonwealthPractice.com
> -> Who are you gonna be while you're doing what you do? <