A632.3.4.RB_MaceRoyce

Shoemaker and Russo discuss the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to guard against it.  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" would've helped you through the process? How much "risk" do you feel was in your recommendation? What did you learn about yourself through this exercise?

There are three ways in which I would avoid "framing traps" which are described my Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunter (2001) as "illusion of completeness" and "overconfidence about our view". First is to provide opportunities of inclusion. Any internal or external coordination that seems necessary (no matter how small), should become a priority. In avoiding the illusion of completeness and overconfidence of our view, we must coordinate early, often, and with the hope of gaining the perspective of an outside source.

For example, asking an external department/agency for an audit is one way to get an outside perspective in which to avoid the two aforementioned traps of frame blindness. A fresh set of eyes with expertise in your field can make all the difference. Alternatively, asking a collaborating agency to share ideas or review organizational practices can help alleviate either of the traps associated with frame blindness. Inclusion has been a lifesaver in my own career as an Airfield Operations Compliance Inspection (AOCI) was conducted while I was stationed at Travis Air Force Base a few years ago. 

This regularly scheduled inspection (each Air Force Base gets one every few years) gave us some insight as to what air traffic operation we were and were not compliant with. Our own frames were shifted post inspection as evidenced by our non-compliant methods that had become normal practice (self-induced blindness). In hindsight, we as an organization could have framed our situation differently by allowing another agency of similar operation inspect us in order to gain some perspective.

Second, we can utilize a "rack and stack" perspective to avoid framing traps. Sit down as an organization (either individually or with other inclusive and relevant organizations) in order to discuss framing issues and where they rank as a priority. This may be difficult if the organization(s) is/are made up of many different sections, but "racking and stacking" the framing issues is ultimately up to the leader of the organization.

As a member of my current organization, I have seen the benefits of racking and stacking priorities as they relate to framing. For example, our organization's leadership recently created a "three year plan". The purpose of this plan is to have all of our logistics, training, and operations laid out in three year increments. While creating this living document, the leadership team had to collectively "rack and stack" the most critical logistical, operational, and training worthy items as they pertained to a diverse group of jobs throughout the organization. Is the training of an air traffic controller more important than that of a radar maintainer? Is a new HVAC system more worthy of purchase than a death tent? Are people the priority or is equipment the focus with an aging fleet of operational equipment and parts?

As you can imagine, prioritizing the aforementioned items can become a daunting task. Overall, the organization does a good job of seeing the three year plan through the frames of each section. We collectively discuss the priorities and avoid the blindness of an organization who only sees through the lens of any one person or any one section. Doing it this way has helped to avoid any consequences as they relate to organizational priorities.

Third, an After Action Report (AAR) can help to alleviate framing traps. Instead of completing a task or mission and simply moving on to the next, an AAR allows us to reframe future decisions as they relate to new tasks or missions. An AAR helps to reveal good and bad practices, future needs, and incorrectly aligned frames. 

For example, after a exercise conducted by our organization in 2016, the leadership team required an AAR that requested feedback from all sections of the organization. All members were encouraged to up-channel their concerns and/or praises about any part of the exercise (safety, operatons, equipment, etc.). This allowed the leadership team to evaluate all frames of mind (bottom to top) as it pertained to the whole exercise and avoid "illusion of completeness" and "overconfidence about our view". 

Framing the situation this way was obviously beneficial as we applied necessary corrections to our planning of future exercises, but still could have included some more outside perspective. To more fully avoid framing traps, we could have included an outside source (person(s)) on the mission. By adding another commanding officer senior in rank to our own, there could have been some unexpected yet valuable feedback provided. This may be an option for future exercises.

Switching gears a bit, the exercise was able to really open my eyes to the complexity of a decision such as the mock decision presented within the text. There are so many frames to consider and perspectives to include. Another frame that would have added value to the exercise could have been to add a third or even a fourth person to the exercise to really open up the framing possibilities and gather even more perspective from others. In looking back at my own personal recommendation, I now recognize the risk of placing too much emphasis on the functional frames for general business problems and not enough emphasis on the customers, competitors, negotiations, or organizational frames for complex problems.

From this exercise and the assignment as a whole, I have learned that applying my three ways to avoid "framing traps" (inclusion, "rack and stack", and AARs) may have helped alleviate some of my pitfalls. Pitfalls where the focus is too much on general business problems and not enough on the other framing domains presented. Overall, I have learned that framing is really a never-ending or "satisfied" process. We as decision makers must constantly re-frame our decisions and improve our decision-making processes through continual self-reflection, team/organizational reflection, and education.


References

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions.

     Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.