Carlita Gilbert Daniels
Reply
UNIT 2 – DISCUSSION BOARD
Sun 5/21/2023 2:46 PM
LikeUnit 2 – Discussion Board Like PostFlagUnit 2 – Discussion Board Flag Post
Good morning! It has been established that even in today’s business dichotomy, where it has been proven that it is important to be self-aware in order to improve your job performance, ensure career success, and inspire leadership, there are still organizations where employees and leadership alike are very unaware of how their attitudes and negative biases can adversely affect a team’s performance on a project or in the workplace.
Being unaware in the workplace can lead to poor morale among team members. In identifying those persons who are un-aware ” several consistent behaviors tend to be present in such individuals: (1) they won’t listen to, or accept, critical feedback; (2) they cannot empathize with, or take the perspective of, others; (3) they have difficulty “reading a room” and tailoring their message to their audience; (4) they possess an inflated opinion of their contributions and performance; (5) they are hurtful to others without realizing; (6) they take credit for credit successes and blames others for failures ( Eurich, 2018).”
As a leader/manager, one must decide if he/she is the right person to address the unaware person and what approach is applicable. If the unaware person is an employee simply counseling the individual may be all that is necessary to get a dishearten employee to begin a dialogue. however, if the person is in management, it may prove a bit trickier. Some bosses have been known to take a “superior attitude” when feeling like their authority is being challenged. This is where one must tread cautiously. A suggestion for dealing with a person of this nature is to appeal to their humanity. Empathy just could be the key to reaching an individual who otherwise, may appear to be unreachable.
The other alternative is the wait and see approach. One can chose not to intervene and allow to let history with the individual run its course, as it has been said that patience and prayer can change a person.
In explaining how common biases, bounded awareness, emotion and motivation can affect decision- making, there has been close examination of the case of the market disaster of 2004 when Merck, the pharmaceutical was forced to withdraw thousands of prescriptions for the pain relief medication, Vioxx, due to the substantial health issues that it costs including but not limited to cardiovascular disease. At the printing of this article by Bazerman and Chugh, the drug was responsible for nearly 25,000 heart fatalities.” Merck had reported to federal regulators in 2001 that there were significant complications associated with the use of Vioxx yet continued its manufacturing with no provocation (Bazerman and Chugh, 2006).”
Even with such evidence the executives had at their disposal they acted with ” bounded awareness- when cognitive blinders prevent a person from seeing, seeking, using, or sharing highly relevant, easily accessible, and readily perceivable information during the decision -making process (Bazerman and Chugh, 2006).” The way this information was readily conveyed to and perceived by upper management led to a gross injustice and costs a lot of lives and money. And also, a loss in trust of pharmaceutical companies, in general.
Another historical disaster that was possibly preventable by using the data given was the Challenger space shuttle accident. There was unrefuted data and evidence from prior testing that indicated upon reaching certain temperatures the O-rings would freeze up, leading to potential failures. And so, the motivation to make a deadline led to all warnings being ignored. And 7 astronauts lost their lives. Failure to seek and use relevant information can lead to very costly consequences.
Any instance in which one deflects from using sound judgment when given sufficient information is not practicing good decision-making. And such was the case with CitiBank when it attempted to hide losses for some companies back in the early 2000s. After the creation of the Financial Services Agency (FSA) in 1998, it was established that stiff penalties would be enforced on foreign entities that attempted to illegally hide losses. Wiser heads at CitiBank tried to devise a plan to help out some companies in “their Interests” only to have the entire ploy backfire. For every loophole they tried there was a regulation that eventually caught them. Leading to lawsuits, fines, and a disgraced organization. And the easiest way to solve everyone’s problem was to obey the law and share solutions to staying within the legal limitations of the regulations.
References
Bazerman, Max H. and Chugh, Dolly (2006). Decisions Without Blinders. Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org/2006/01/decisions-without-blinders
Eurich, Tasha (2018). Working With People Who Aren’t Self-Aware. Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org/2018/10/working-with-people-who-arent-self-aware#
