Keeping
Frame Blindness in Check
The
concept of “frame blindness”, defined by Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001)
as an unconscious realization of viewing problems through the same “mental
window”, can easily be explained by imagining a basket of collected eyeglasses
and having to choose the right pair in order to see clearly (p. 139). How often
do we hear others say, in a joking manner, ‘gotta get my eyes checked’? Rather
than admit their eyesight has narrowed and/or diminished, they keep using the
same pair of glasses. The insistence on using the same, outdated pair of
glasses has the same effect as a manager who looks at problems and decision
making by using the mental model; it limits awareness, it presents a false “illusion
of completeness”, and it leads to an overconfidence with the manager that he or
she is able to see all aspects of the problem at hand (Hoch et al., 2001, p.
139). Fortunately, just as it is relatively easy to update one’s glasses,
managers can avoid “frame blindness” by first being willing to recognize their
vulnerability to it and by using methods to control it (Hoch et al., 2001, p.
139). Although unaware of this concept at the time, I used these controls
several years ago.
In
2006, I was hired by the Flagler County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Within a
month of my hire, I had been tasked as the department facilitator for the
Circuit Civil division. At the time, there were fourteen clerks housed in an
office space that was never designed to accommodate fourteen clerks, desks,
file cabinets, and all of the other accessories typically found in a
department. Suffice it to say tensions had mounted throughout a period of time
and had reached the point where conversations did not occur. Levine (2009)
proffers engagement sparks creativity and leads to resolution. Although senior
management recognized a problem existed, mid-level managers had viewed the issue
through the same pair of glasses and could not see the underlying issue further
exacerbating the lack of communication. They lacked a complete picture and
understanding of the problem. Levine (2009) notes, “When a situation is filled
with emotion you must get to the …real source of the conflict, otherwise the
solution will blow up” (p. 134). My role as facilitator began each week with a
meeting that allowed each clerk to tell her story. A shared energy soon
developed and this allowed for solutions to be reached and implemented (Levine,
2009). In the past, leaving a paper jam or an empty paper tray would lead to
heated exchanges of words and management did nothing to address the issue. By
listening to all of the stories in a detached manner, I avoided “frame
blindness” and discovered the main issue was the majority of the clerks had not
been trained with regards to paper jams, or even how to load a paper tray. Like
some, I had thought those who left the copy machine inoperable were simply not
being courteous; however, after listening, I knew the frustration came from not
knowing. In addition to making sure I had a complete picture, a fresh set of
eyes also helped address another concern in the Clerk’s office.
When
I first arrived, our department concentrated on inputting new cases. This decision
was made in order to increase the weekly numbers reported to the state that
would eventually lead to authorization for additional monies and/or staff.
While this focus made our numbers look great; other areas were swept aside and
that work was delayed. By viewing new cases as the top priority, suboptimal
performance ensued as processing of other court documents decreased. To correct
the situation, our weekly meetings turned attention to developing a work flow
process. Each clerk was asked to help prioritize the daily work. As a result,
the original frame of giving priority only to new business was replaced with a
process that included a schedule that called for cross training of all clerks
so that all knew how to process all court documents. Within a month, the
complaining phone calls received on a daily basis had been greatly reduced,
court orders were being processed more regularly, notices that required
newspaper publication no longer had to be hurried at the last minute, and all
work was given equal processing time by all clerks rather than a few.
Perhaps
the primary control I used while with the Clerk’s office was that of aligning
my frames with others (Hoch et al., 2001). Most of the clerks recognized the
production and office issues. They believed they could not challenge mid-level
managers because of the attitude that had been allowed to exist. The weekly
meetings allowed those of us who saw the problems to put our frames together
which helped us to expand our vision, develop a more complete understanding of
the problems, increase productivity, and increase our confidence about what we
knew rather than overestimating what we thought others knew (Hoch et al.,
2001). Challenging those who said a work flow would not work allowed for more
conversation to take place. Initially, implementing the work flow was done by
getting mid-level managers to “stretch” their frames (Hoch et al., 2001, p.
153). An agreement was reached such that if the work flow failed, we would return
to the previous processes. We never had to return to the old ways.
Each
encounter, challenging why the copy machine was left inoperable, why new
business took priority, and why select duties was favored over cross-training
all, had to be presented in a way that called in to question the focus of the
current frame. Identifying “frame misfit”, aligning my frames with others, and
allowing others to stretch their frames, helped me to understand the frustration
level of fourteen women, frame problems in a way that encouraged and created
shared energy rather than shared animosity, and learn that although change
alone represents a risk to some, the risk of staying silent and continuing to allow
management to use outdated glasses does greater harm to the organization.
References
Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C.,
& Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on
Making Decisions.
Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to Resolution: Turning Conflict into
Collaboration. San
Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment