A632.2.3.RB_MaceRoyce
We all want customized experiences and products -- but when faced with 700 options, consumers freeze up. With fascinating new research, Sheena Iyengar demonstrates how businesses (and others) can improve the experience of choosing. Identify four of the methodologies Sheena Iyengar suggests as methods of helping us improve our experience in choosing. Discuss the implications of two of these methods in terms of your own decision-making as an individual and a member of an organization. How else can you improve your ability to decide?
Iyengar (2011) identifies the four different ways to improve the experience of choosing: cut (less is more), concretize (make it vivid), categorize (more categories, fewer choices), and condition (low to high choice condition vs. high to low choice condition). Through psycho-economic research, Iyengar (2011) was able to see the correlation between these four choices models and how they can improve the decision-making process for consumers. As managers and leaders, we can use this information and help shape decisions made as individuals and as members of our respective organizations.
The two methods that I would like to discuss are "cut" and "concretize". As suggested by Iyengar (2011), cutting the overwhelming number of choices is a vital first step to help assist in the decision-making process. Overwhelming amounts of choices seem to inevitably leave the decision maker with a feeling of sensory overload and the feeling of having their time wasted. For example, I have personally been overwhelmed in trying to choose from hundreds of choices.
This occurred when my wife and I tried to choose a holiday card this past holiday season. As we looked online for a card that we liked, we were given so many choices that we searched for a short period and decided to move on to something else. Two things were at work here: first, we simply had too many choices. If it were ten or so choices to choose from, we both would have likely checked out quickly with the choices given, Second, we had more important things to do with our time. If the choices had been less, it was likely that a decision would be made more quickly and our time could have been utilized more effectively.
As a member of an organization that relies on quick and effective decisions and actions, having less manpower (cutting - more with less) can be a challenging endeavor. The Air Force has constantly tried to do more with less over the last ten years or so. As it did, money was saved, but it was saved at the expense of morale as workloads for many personnel doubled or tripled. Deployments became more frequent and expectations rose significantly due to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While cutting can be a positive monetary tool as described by Iyengar (2011), we must be careful not to treat people like a product when it comes to our organizations.
In addition to cutting, the effects of concretizing can help us as decision makers. For example, how many times do we read a new credit card offer or a confusing bill that uses excess verbiage or tries to explain everything in a complicated manner? Credit card offers that explain benefits in a simple and concise manner or a bill that uses visually appealing charts to ease the decision-making process are always more welcome to me as a consumer and decision maker. Ultimately, consumers and decision makers will gravitate towards the simple and well-explained selling point that doesn't confuse or waste valuable time.
As a member of an organization, "concretization" can benefit us by helping make decisions more vivid and easier to envision. For example, in my organization (the U.S. Air Force), meetings are frequented with slides that help members to envision choices that need to be made. Pictures and simplified explanations help guide the leadership team in making the most effective and timely decision. Having these choices become "concrete" in the minds of the decision-making team streamlines the decision-making process immensely.
Lastly, we can improve our ability to decide as individuals and as organizations by combining the aforementioned methods from Iyengar (2011) with Koch, Kunreuther, & Gunther's (2001) idea that simplified models combined with human intuition can help improve our decision-making abilities. Utilizing the combination of these methods help to create a simplified yet data-driven decision-making process that can help us as individuals, leaders, and managers in almost any decision-making situation.
Reference
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions.
New York: Wiley.
Iyengar, S. (2011). Sheen Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easiter [Video file}. Retrieved
from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheen_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose
Iyengar (2011) identifies the four different ways to improve the experience of choosing: cut (less is more), concretize (make it vivid), categorize (more categories, fewer choices), and condition (low to high choice condition vs. high to low choice condition). Through psycho-economic research, Iyengar (2011) was able to see the correlation between these four choices models and how they can improve the decision-making process for consumers. As managers and leaders, we can use this information and help shape decisions made as individuals and as members of our respective organizations.
The two methods that I would like to discuss are "cut" and "concretize". As suggested by Iyengar (2011), cutting the overwhelming number of choices is a vital first step to help assist in the decision-making process. Overwhelming amounts of choices seem to inevitably leave the decision maker with a feeling of sensory overload and the feeling of having their time wasted. For example, I have personally been overwhelmed in trying to choose from hundreds of choices.
This occurred when my wife and I tried to choose a holiday card this past holiday season. As we looked online for a card that we liked, we were given so many choices that we searched for a short period and decided to move on to something else. Two things were at work here: first, we simply had too many choices. If it were ten or so choices to choose from, we both would have likely checked out quickly with the choices given, Second, we had more important things to do with our time. If the choices had been less, it was likely that a decision would be made more quickly and our time could have been utilized more effectively.
As a member of an organization that relies on quick and effective decisions and actions, having less manpower (cutting - more with less) can be a challenging endeavor. The Air Force has constantly tried to do more with less over the last ten years or so. As it did, money was saved, but it was saved at the expense of morale as workloads for many personnel doubled or tripled. Deployments became more frequent and expectations rose significantly due to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While cutting can be a positive monetary tool as described by Iyengar (2011), we must be careful not to treat people like a product when it comes to our organizations.
In addition to cutting, the effects of concretizing can help us as decision makers. For example, how many times do we read a new credit card offer or a confusing bill that uses excess verbiage or tries to explain everything in a complicated manner? Credit card offers that explain benefits in a simple and concise manner or a bill that uses visually appealing charts to ease the decision-making process are always more welcome to me as a consumer and decision maker. Ultimately, consumers and decision makers will gravitate towards the simple and well-explained selling point that doesn't confuse or waste valuable time.
As a member of an organization, "concretization" can benefit us by helping make decisions more vivid and easier to envision. For example, in my organization (the U.S. Air Force), meetings are frequented with slides that help members to envision choices that need to be made. Pictures and simplified explanations help guide the leadership team in making the most effective and timely decision. Having these choices become "concrete" in the minds of the decision-making team streamlines the decision-making process immensely.
Lastly, we can improve our ability to decide as individuals and as organizations by combining the aforementioned methods from Iyengar (2011) with Koch, Kunreuther, & Gunther's (2001) idea that simplified models combined with human intuition can help improve our decision-making abilities. Utilizing the combination of these methods help to create a simplified yet data-driven decision-making process that can help us as individuals, leaders, and managers in almost any decision-making situation.
Reference
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions.
New York: Wiley.
Iyengar, S. (2011). Sheen Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easiter [Video file}. Retrieved
from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheen_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose
Comments
Post a Comment