Hello Larry, May we request a copy of the McGraw-Hill module on
decision-making, along with materials on the ACES decision-making
technique.
Many thanks Annette
Annette Leslie - Research Officer
Cranfield University
International Ecotechnology Research Centre
Building 37
Cranfield University
Cranfield
Beds, MK43 0AL
This communication is sent in confidence to the named recipient only.
If you are not the named recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of
this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by
telephone or email. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent
the corporate views of Cranfield University. Cranfield University
accepts no liability for the content of this email or the consequences
of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided."
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Larry Pate
Sent: 07 December 2004 21:03
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Simon vs. Bolman & Deal
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? <