Management of

Organisations (MGTO)
July 24 – July 29
Session 1: Mapping your power base, position, and network

1) John Mitchell case: Is about having intelligence, knowledge, and the potential for power—and then squandering it. He fails to diagnose his own power, the other players, and the
situation itself. He also has emotional reactions to influence—as we’ll see through the in-class surveys—that restrict his ability to get things done. The whole class will be around
understanding and removing these obstacles.

2) Power diagnosis: Do an analysis of your own power base. Where are your strengths and weaknesses in your own organization? How can you build up your power base. In
particular, what are your key resources at work? What gives you power to build relationships with people? Who are the people in your workplace (both junior, senior, and lateral)
where there are mutually beneficial exchanges possible? How can you start to trade so that you can better embed yourself in the social network and invest/multiply your social
capital?

3) Where are there power vacuums in your organization (places where you have room to maneuver because those with formal power are unwilling/unable to exercise power?)
Where are the structural holes in your workplace (people/groups who fail to communicate with each other) and can you bridge them?

4) Where have you seen learned helplessness in your organization (rationalizations like: there are not enough resources, bad economy etc.) Can you try to move people to the box
where they see themselves as having more control over their outcomes? Can you design behaviors to keep them moving and unfreeze them?

5) Think about yourself monitoring style-your ability/willingness to monitor yourself to "fit" with others around you. If you are low, you are probably innately more comfortable with
building strong and deep relationships in a clique. However, research indicates that your networks are likely to be less diverse. Find the person in your organization who is most
aversive to you, and get a meal with them to see if you can practice the skills of self-monitoring (i.e. neutral statements, lack of judgment, leaving them feeling they can do business
with you) without compromising your core ideals and sense of "authenticity". John Mitchell=low self-monitor.

6) Think about how your personal “defaults” in network building map onto the job you have to do. Advantages of a clique: emotional support, implementation, focus (“microscope
vision”) vs. chaos). Advantages of having a network with a lot of structural holes: freedom, control, diversity, innovation, creativity, luck, scanning “telescope”. Use the network
diagnostic questions at the end to evaluate how your network is positioning you or limiting you.

Referenced Book:
Gillian Tett: The Silo Effect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/books/review/the-silo-effect-by-gillian-tett.html?_r=0

This is the famous case-- the set of books by robert caro--on how this former us president created power from nothing. i typically teach it directly after the mitchell case as a'reverse john mitchell'
case. this interview summarizes the key points. 
Lessons in Power: Lyndon Johnson Revealed (hbr.org)
Session 2: Behavioral decision making

1. Madsen/clayton case.  no win/win here, and it's all about aggressively claiming value for yourself (our upcoming cases
will test very different defaults—do not worry). But if you made a "mistake" in this case, it's one of the best learning
experiences. People fall for irrelevant anchors all the time (e.g. list prices in housing market; “regular” retail prices that allow
us to see 75% sale prices as a deal; "phantom price" from a supplier which you have been accepting for years without
question. Where did their number come from? Can you get them to reanchor by proposing an alternative anchor? See
William Poundstone’s book “Priceless” to understand the fascinating process by which prices emerge.

2. Behavioral decision making. I love this case as it compromises your powers of decision making in various ways... the
uncertainty around the numbers and time pressure. You’re forced to take short cuts (i.e. heuristics) that subject you to bias
(error). The key one this case illustrates is anchoring and adjustment heuristic. You find an anchor—any anchor, even from
your opponent—and it sticks in your mind influencing your decision making. The key is to maintain your internal compass
—based on your own data/analysis/precedents—so that your judgments aren’t adrift based on external cues that others
(opponents, marketers etc.) can manipulate.

3. The case also showcases another yet source of bias: self-interest. Both parties read the identical case—but we literally
saw different cases based on the roles we’re assigned to argue. That is because of “selective perception”: we fixated on
specific facts rather than others, and questioned certain assumptions as compared to others based on what we knew we
had to argue. being anchored on our perspectives limits our ability to connect with people, and also influence and
persuade them. the best persuaders can read the case exactly as the other side would--so they can better predict and prep
the other's side's view of the world. I loved the many people who did this as prep: creating their own pros and cons to
anticipate the other side's perspective and force themselves to see their own weaknesses.
Session 3: Decision Making (1/2)

1. We intro-ed behavioral decision theory. Psychological research questions economic assumptions of rational decision making. People often
take fast decisions and we will describe specific mental processes by which the mind enters “energy conservation” mode, and how to defend
ourselves against it in the next session.

2, As our intuition game revealed—even though people may have tremendous faith in their ability to read others—in interviews and
relationships-- people are generally no better than chance in judging liars and truth tellers. this is the link to Robert Baron Cohen's reading
the mind in the eyes test--if you want another (famous) test of your people-reading abilities.
http://socialintelligence.labinthewild.org/mite/

3. Then we described specific mental processes by which the mind enters “energy conservation” mode:
-selective perception-focusing on one part of the picture rather than processing it in its full complexity.
-going on automatic-routinizing/going on 'autopilot' when we’re expert at particular repeated tasks.
-avoiding decision making when we’re overloaded
-using heuristics: shortcut rules of thumb to make decisions (anchoring and adjustment, availability (if I can think of it easily, it’s bigger,
larger, better etc), and stereotypes

4. The key point is that it's not that fast decisions are good (or bad). We revealed many examples of how fast thinking can be biased, but you
can be fast and smart if that decision is based on a diagnostic cue (e.g. dr. gottman can make split second (thin slice) judgments about
whether a marriage will end in divorce or not with 94% accuracy because he’s found a highly reliable cue. We discussed how to locate these
highly reliable cues: think about the decisions you tend to make repeatedly. e.g. hiring productive salespeople; identifying customers likely to
default on payments, etc. Initiate a data analytic process by rate outcomes on success/failure; identifying independent variables (potential
causal factors), and then running a regression to locate diagnostic cues vs. junk variables that actually predict nothing. Find the hidden data
your organization is collecting but not analyzing.
Session 4: Decision Making (2/2)

 Need for structure means that you want order, prediction, and dislike ambiguity. This can set you up to use
heuristics, according to researcher Arie Kruglanski—i.e. to be fast and biased. The low need for structure
people may be fine with ambiguity but the question is whether they may sometimes become paralyzed by
over-analysis. These orientations create tremendous tensions between people (you are high need for
structure—and your boss fails to create a clear framework, sends you on wild goose chases for data, and may
struggle with getting closure on a final decision. To manage this dynamic, place deadlines on the decisions
and prioritize issues (if we don’t get closure on this by Friday, we’re losing the sale). And if you are low need
for structure and your boss is high—the challenge lies in getting them the data—perhaps in succinct, bite size
presentation—so they can capture multiple scenarios other than the one they’ve fixated on.
 This is a short set of resources I've used when talking to companies about better hiring. the first is my article
in hbr.org, the others are the research basis on the points discussed today.
 The two high value add opportunities are:
 -evaluating behavioral work samples to tap the job behaviors of interest
 -designing structured interview questions with a rubric to assess answers on particular dimensions. (see google article
below)
Session 5-6: Conflict

 Many of you noticed key escalation traps and didn’t fall into them. But the harder part is
doing it in real life conflicts.
-Are there certain triggers in your work/other conflicts that lead you down various rabbit
holes? Think about how your groups and teams can fall into those traps.
-think about how you are answering the “why” question in such interactions. Are you making
a fundamental attribution error about others? It's easy to make bad situations about bad
people... instead of recognizing the complexity of the situation, it’s easy to turn it into “Brian
is an irresponsible jerk” "porters are cheap" and "Simpsons are self-serving". Fundamental
attribution errors are fast and quick, but they lay a causal cement that can lead us to solving
the wrong problem.
-Look for Dr. Gottman’s 4 horsemen in your relationships and at work. They predict when
relationships fail. If you do not eliminate them—i.e. find another way to manage the
relationships—you might be fighting in ways that make your conflicts escalate rapidly.
Session 5-6: Conflict

 Persuasion theory. You read the Cialdini book, and my goal wasn't to regurgitate it but to spur the application process
as you think about basic managerial questions you may be facing reprimanding your subordinates, delivering
messages to people you need to influence, and navigating the lines between positive/negative reinforcement, and also
your authority/expertise and participation, empowerment, and choice to others.

 Ego: "giving something to the other person so they can come your way“. a. Choice. Yes, people feel more
'empowered' and 'intrinsically motivated' if they choose themselves and participate. But, too many choices--they are
overloaded, upset, uncertain--so giving people a few choices is more powerful. And if you give people choice, you can
very well lose control. When leaders give choices, it's often after they've carefully created strong norms in the group
and so the group is bought into the big ideas you care about already. Giving your expert recommendation--and then
being open to the "how" and the "implementation" were good ways to balance choice with structure/participation.

b. Positive and negative reinforcement.

I’ve sat through many management and leadership classes which I call "happy leadership" where it's basically cast as
"wrong" to use anything other than positive language. This misses a critical part of human psychology: people are
motivated by both carrots and sticks. Are you comfortable delivering negative messages? if you are not, you risk
creating an environment where bad behavior becomes an acceptable norm. This is not just a management problem--
societal as well--as this article on the collapse of parenting suggests:
Session 5-6: Conflict

Punishment... doesn't shape behavior and tell people what to do. And it creates resentment, fear, and
people who will say/do anything to get out of the situation (e.g. terrorist interrogation article): 
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/10/the-dark-art-of-interrogation/302791/
Reinforcement: shapes behavior

2. social persuasion: are you accidentally highlighting negative social norms (only 10% of people have
contributed to our class gift)? Reframe the message: 95% of our people are satisfied with the program.
can you use the power of social pressure in your favor?

3. Physical persuasion: Making it easy for people to come your way.

Create behavioral channels to turn action into intention.
-making it easy: defaults, removing steps, attach a behavioral channel to your requests (click here,
here's the stamped addressed envelope to send it back etc).
-making it fun: gamification-adding contests, competition, etc to turn rote activity into a game.
 
Session 5-6: Conflict

Cialdini's visual notes: notes for influence book:yourself in different situations (chameleons). Machiavellians are comfortable
with manipulation as an interpersonal tactic. Lower scores indicate discomfort with these. Both measures are critical and
affect how you think about influence and tactics. The point is certainly not that you should become one or the other--but know
yourself and think about how you can use principles such as Cialdini's in a way that makes you both comfortable and
effective. A very interesting article about this measure and what it's associated with is described in the article below.
http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9909/13/machiavelli.salon/index3.html#BIO

IV. Speed ventures

This is an extremely famous case. I like so many of the learnings in the case, but it is quite emotional as well. The key thing
to note is that the exercise in class doesn’t have the ethically charged issues that the real-life situation did (i.e. loss of life),
and that was a case where real experts were involved (vs. doing 10 mins pre-reading on the case). When the case was
initially created and run at Duke University, 93% of the class were racers. This is not surprising: there are so many external
pressures that push us to race (escalation of commitment, loss of money/sponsorships, and simple preference for action vs.
inaction and "quitting").

The case obviously recalls decision biases once again. Just like Madsen/Clayton, you are in a situation of uncertainty, there
is time pressure, money on the line etc. The question is whether groups are good self-protection against bias—we see ways
they might not be. And even data isn’t self-protection—if it’s fundamentally flawed.
.
Session 5-6: Conflict

1. Confirmation bias. This is the key bias we introduced—how we look to confirm our own hypotheses. We gather information selectively, we
struggle to test alternative hypotheses, all this skews our attempts to perform the scientific method intuitively. When we poll... we discover we all
agreed and end the discussed. Another group described beginning with the same polling process, directly tried to “prove our race intuition
wrong.” Perhaps they would have gotten to the data problems given more time, but even with the right approach—it’s still hard to get there.

2. One reason is we all naturally fixate on analyzing the data that is present rather than thinking broadly about what is missing or needed.
Another reason is from the 2-4-8 video. We like to generate hypotheses that confirm our intuitions rather than testing the boundaries of those
generalizations by trying to disconfirm. The 2-4-8 video, which i love, is one ex., and it is fascinating look at confirmation bias:

The case represents the problem of “sampling on the dependent variable.” You can’t learn about what causes failures by looking at just the
failures. You need the full set of outcomes which shows you the conditions that also lead to success.

Karl Popper complained that Freudians and Marxists weren’t engaged in science—they just cataloged evidence that supported their theories vs.
generating “falsifiable hypotheses.” The hypothesis that all swans are white can’t be tested by cataloging all the white swans. You can only test
that hypothesis by finding a swan of another color (e.g. black swans (in Australia).

Think how this applies to hiring. Suppose I always hire a certain type of person for the job that fits a particular profile: only people with PHDs from
certain elite schools are fit for the job. I always hire those people; they are most often good. But what if I try to hire people with a bachelor’s
degree from a nonelite school? They do just as good, and I’ve now truly tested the criteria of “eliteness” as a meaningful predictor.

3. Groups aren’t good self-protection because we tend to conform with each other’s opinions (groupthink, bystander effects-groups doing nothing
in the situation of the fire, Kitty Genovese).

4. Your powers of critical thinking are your key form of self-protection.

Schedule
Date Requirements Status Group

• Chapter 5 (Communication Trap) Pre-reads done TBD

24th July • TCA case

• Chapter 2 (Expertise Trap) TBR TBD

25th July • Madsen Clayton case

• Chapter 3&4 ( Winner’s & Agreement Trap) TBR TBD

26th July • Entire book of Cialdini

• Rooftop Deck TBR TBD

27th July

• TBA in class TBR TBD

28th July

• Chapter 6 (Macromanagement Trap) TBR TBD

29th July • TBA in class

30th July
Assessments

Final Examination: August 1st 23:59:59

Individual essay: Core Professional Challenge: 8 August 23:59:59

Group Coaching Essay: 20 August 23:59:59

Group collaboration analysis: 20 August 23:59:59

Case study: Textiles Corporation of
America - TCA (HBS case)
 TCA merger of three family-owned companies: SA Mills led W Abbott, NC Mills
led by Ford, Carolina Cotton & Co. led by Rand
 NC Mills had the largest share of Business in the texcorp – revenues of $25M
our of total $45 M. Also,
Session 1: Course Introduction &
Networked Leader
 People go through their life with undigested experience – insightful experiences cause the wisdom – spark
between experience and explanation
 Experience is a dear teacher ……but fools will learn from no others
 Goal: Get wiser younger and get them cheaply
 Textile Corp is all about Frustration - Squandered opportunity for John Mitchell
 Model of Attribution
 Mitchell doesn’t have clarity – lines of Authority – but has a lot of potential
1. No clarity on Role conception – whether John Mitchell was working for W Abbott or Hicks ? – RACI
1. Misdiagnosed the Authority/Power of role (cognitive) – 6 models

2. Influence Self-Monitoring – High-self monitoring are very adjusting to the people around vs Low self-monitoring
1. Understanding about what others want vs. Personal growth

2. Doug has taken the power base and that’s how the run business
Session 2: Madsen and Clayton case

 That back was the least of my worries then, and since nothing was broken I
figured it would take care of itself
 Role of Parking lot and Gangs
 Few instances of nearly complete recovery and resumption of normal
physical activity from patients undergoing the surgical procedure.
 You can get rich off stuff like this. God forbid I get injured. But once I
get a lawsuit going, I’ll milk it for everything it’s worth and then retire.”
 depend on the amount of marijuana ingestion (not clearly stated
 loss of several friendships and his girlfriend + musical Career
Session 3

Questions in the Exams

 John Mitchell – Key takeaways of the case studies ?
 Network schema concepts – Structure Hole, Scope
Class Notes in Chat

 When people communicate in cliques, they’re investing in time and resources

to hear what they may already know.
 By expanding their network, they can yield higher novel signals.
 While networking in cliques creates redundant noise, people in structural
holes can feel overwhelmed with the information and find themselves in
chaotic noise.
 However, sometimes you need to branch out to expose yourself to broader
things. It leads to innovation and creativity but can create chaos and
confusion too.
Exam Prep – Class notes

 Freedom