Blog Archives

Decision Support Tool: Instructions for Creating a “Value Tree”

Part of a value tree of one of my clients

Whenever you have a really big decision to make, the best place to start thinking about it is by identifying what really matters – that is, by clarifying your goals and values. To help with that, the exercise of constructing a “Value Tree” is a great decision support tool. Here you can download a set of instructions on how to create your very own value tree (written by myself and Barry Anderson).

The Research

Value trees (also known as “goal hierarchies” in decision theory) are an established method to support decision-making. Their effectiveness has been evaluated by several independent researchers with real career decisions. Those studies have shown that constructing a goal hierarchy leads people to process more information (Aschenbrenner et al., 1980, Paul, 1984), come up with more specific, rather than generic, goals (Teuscher, 2003), and be more satisfied with their decisions (Paul, 1984).

The Practice

It’s easy to do this exercise by yourself, but the value tree is also great decision support tool to use in a coaching setting. Therefore, a part of our instructions are addressed to counselors, coaches and facilitators who may want to start using this method. A value tree can be especially helpful for couples or groups who are tackling decisions together.

Below are a few examples of value trees that my clients or students created. While you probably won’t be able to read the content in these images, I hope the examples will encourage you to grab your own block of sticky notes and get started – and don’t hesitate to personalize this exercise.

Value Tree as a Decision Support Tool - Client Example

Value Tree Exercise (Workshop on Decision Support Tools by Ursina Teuscher)

Value Tree Exercise (Workshop on Decision Support Tools by Ursina Teuscher)

Value Tree Exercise (Student Example)

Value Tree Exercise (Student Example)

References:
Aschenbrenner, K. M., Jaus, D., and Villani, C. (1980). Hierarchical goal structuring and pupils’ job choices: testing a decision aid in the field. Acta Psychologica, 45:35–49.
Paul, G. (1984). Entscheidungshilfen im Studien- und Berufswahlprozess. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
Teuscher, U. (2003). Evaluation of a decision training program for vocational guidance. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 3:177–192.

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR



Who Should Make Which Decisions in Your Team?

A practical tool and downloadable template to help determine decision authority.

For the most part, my work focuses on helping people figure out HOW to make good decisions. However, in an organization (or family! or any other group of people), the more urgent and conflict-prone question is often WHO should make which types of decisions, rather than how they should make them.

During a conversation with a client lately, I realized that this, too, is a decision that we can approach with the same frameworks and questions that are helpful for other decisions. In this case, the “alternatives” are people within the organization. In other words, each potential decision-maker is one option, and the main challenge is to define which criteria the decision-maker should fulfill in order to bear that responsibility. Once you have defined those criteria, it becomes much more straightforward to assign the right person the responsibility for any type of decision.

Who should decide? How to determine decision authority in your team

I’ve created a template to illustrate and support this process. You can download it here. The spreadsheet as it is here may be too sophisticated for many situations, but you can adapt that general idea, and use it in any way you choose to guide this process within your team. (You should also adapt the set of criteria and their importance weights as you see fit, but the example may help you get started. It was among others inspired by this article.)

 

Who should decide? How to determine decision authority in your team

 

Things to consider when you use this approach to determine who gets to make which decisions in your team:

If there are no trade-offs (i.e., some people score higher than others on all criteria), the decision authority can simply go to the person with the highest total score (Column G). However, if there are trade-offs (as in the example), don’t look only at the totals. Trade-offs between criteria often suggest a way to share the decision.

For this example, given these particular criteria:

  • People with high expertise, but who are not affected by the decision (Team Member 2 in this example) could be advisors to the decision-maker.
  • People who are not affected by the decision in their regular work, if all goes well, but who might be affected by fallout of negative consequences (Team Member 3 in the example), could get a veto role. In other words, the person higher in the chain of command/responsibility might want to let someone else, who is closer to the decision, develop and propose a solution, but they might want to reserve the right to approve it before it is implemented. Criterion 3 here would justify this kind of overseeing role for Team Member 3 for this particular decision (clearly distinguishing this case from a micro-managing leadership style in general).

A possible practical solution for this example:
Team Member 1 could create a proposal, advised by Team Member 2. Team Member 3 would have to approve the proposed solution before it is implemented.

If you have faced the question of “who should make which decisions” in your team, please let me know what you think about this process. I’d love to hear about your experience!

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR



How to Make Smart Group Decisions – Video

How to Make Better Decisions in Imperfect Communities
By Ursina Teuscher, PhD

Keynote talk presented at XII° Convegno Nazionale S.I.P.CO Palermo, June 7-9, 2018: Communita Imperfette – Dalle Dinamiche Disgregative al Decision Making Comunitario.

Summary

In communities that consist of diverse interest groups, it can be challenging to make decisions that are actively supported or at least accepted by all critical parties, despite their differing interests. Top-down decisions may face unexpected opposition, resulting in costs or delays.
This talk presents a process framework and practical tools to facilitate participatory decision processes. The suggested process is designed after a value-focused (Keeney, 1996) and multi-attribute model of decision making (e.g., Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986, Anderson, Hahn, and Teuscher, 2013).
As a practical but broadly applicable model for interventions, the suggested process is structured into three stages. The first step is to determine the stakeholders and clarify what their interests are, and to involve the stakeholders in defining a measurable set of criteria. The second step is a search for innovative solutions that fulfill these criteria best. Unless the decision requires topic experts to draw up solutions, this stage may involve stakeholders and community members in a bid for innovative proposals. In the third and final step, the proposed solutions are evaluated along all criteria in a weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. An example of public involvement in a decision process in Oregon (facilitated by my colleague Sam Imperati) illustrates how to design a voting ballot in the form of a weighted decision table. In this case, the decision table served at the same time to inform the voters about the estimated facts associated with each option along all criteria. The example demonstrates that it is possible to evaluate even complex and controversial decisions in a democratic process, and that a democratic process can be quite different from a simple yes-or-no vote between unpopular options. Instead, it suggests a richer, yet efficient participatory process that is optimized for innovation, while being perceived as fair and transparent.
While the practical application shown here is a recent examples of a real public decision, rather than a research study, many previous case studies (reviews e.g., by Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986; Anderson et al., 2013) show that participatory decision processes of this kind – following a value-focused and multi-attribute model – can lead to surprising amounts of innovation and agreement in challenging community decisions.

References:
Anderson, B., Hahn, D., & Teuscher, U. (2013). Heart and Mind: Mastering the Art of Decision Making. CreateSpace Publishing.
Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press.
Winterfeldt, D. von, & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press.

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR



Summer Reading List 2018

New Summer Readings: Books on Decision Making and Goal AchievementAnother hopefully long and beautiful summer is coming up, and my intention is to spend a lot of it productively: reading. Preferably in a hammock. If you feel the same, here comes my new list of book recommendations about decision-making and goal achievement.

Dan Ariely and Jeff Kreisler (2017). Dollars and Sense: How We Misthink Money and How to Spend Smarter. I’ve always enjoyed Dan Ariely’s self-deprecating sense of humor, and in this collaboration he found a great match in Jeff Kreisler. Even though I was familiar with most of the concepts they discuss, this book not only kept me entertained, but also highlighted very clearly (and sometimes painfully) the irrationalities around money that I still allow into my life. Read a sample here.

Chris Guillebeau (2017). Side Hustle: From Idea to Income in 27 Days. A practical step-by-step guide of how to create and launch a profitable part-time business. You can look into it here. Chris Guillebeau’s approach is very much no-nonsense, no fluff, no jargon – from brainstorming, shaping and selecting ideas, to launching, tracking and refining your game. While some steps would likely take more than his suggested hour per day, and while I’m not confident that I would have the discipline to follow all his steps in sequence, I do think it would make sense to do just that.

Bryan Dik and Ryan Duffy (2012). Make Your Job a Calling: How the Psychology of Vocation Can Change Your Life at Work. This book explores the powerful idea that almost any kind of occupation can offer any one of us a sense of purpose and thereby satisfaction. The authors define the idea of calling (both from a spiritual and secular perspective), review research on and provide tips for finding a calling at all stages of work and life. They also point out some dangers of pursuing a higher purpose. Here’s a preview.

Greg McKeown (2014). Essentialism. The Disciplined Pursuit of Less. Sure, we all know the importance of prioritizing and focusing, but here Greg McKeown reminds us that living and working as an “essentialist” requires sacrifices. It requires a willingness to give up a lot to gain something of much more value. The author shows how to apply this concept in work as well as leisure and family life, with a special focus on leadership. Mostly through my clients, I know there are too many high-achieving professionals at the verge of burn-out with too many tasks to juggle. For their sake, I hope the message of this book will be heard and will find the necessary traction in our organizations. Check out the beginning here.

Glenn Livingston (2014). Never Binge Again: Reprogram Yourself to Think Like a Permanently Thin Person. Stop Overeating and Binge Eating and Stick to the Food Plan of Your Choice! While I usually recommend books that are based more on data and science, this one is different: its arguments use simple examples that are nonetheless convincing. It makes us realize there are plenty of rules we are perfectly capable of following, where we don’t think of our will-power as limited. For example: I never eat food from a stranger’s plate in a restaurant; I never shoplift; I never pick a fight with strangers. Why, then, do I think that I am powerless over certain food choices in certain situations? Powerless to say NO to the free cookies on a tray, or to the unsupervised half-empty box of donuts? According to this book, it is a simple matter of getting total clarity of what you truly want, and what you don’t want (e.g., when, and it what situations, you want to eat certain types of food), putting those rules into writing, and then sticking to them. Because you know you want to, and you know you can. Friendly rules, but no more permission to screw up, ever again.
(“Trigger foods”? We’re not guns. It’s just a metaphor, and perhaps not such a helpful one, I’ve come to think. There is no actual trigger that has the power to release an uncontrollable sequence of actions in us. At any moment, we can – and will – change our behavior, based on new information and our new preferences. So we just need to get our preferences straight.)
Here’s a preview, but it’s actually a free e-book anyway. Written by a coach, it accordingly comes with some promotion of his coaching. Read it for the message, not if you’re looking for a literary masterpiece.

Laurence Gonzales (2004). Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why.
I’m not sure how long this book had been lying on our coffee table when I heard it was the 2018 winner of the Eric Hoffer Award Montaigne Medal. I admit this was the reason I picked it up again this year with renewed interest. I found it for the most part a captivating read, although sometimes frustrating with lots of names in personal stories, which were chopped up across chapters – starting, stopping and taking up again later with no transitions, punishing me for skipping earlier parts. (That may be my problem – I resent non-fiction that forces me to read it as if it were a novel.) More importantly: I took issue with the oversimplified message of “mind over matter”, which I find cynical in the light of those who didn’t survive. Many of his conclusions also suffer from quite literal “survival bias” – not a pun, but a serious problem in his reasoning, although with this topic admittedly a difficult one to avoid. At the very least it should be acknowledged as a limitation. That said, I did learn some interesting lessons about dangers in unexpected places and how to (not) face them. Start reading here.

Brad Borkan and David Hirzel (2017). When Your Life Depends on It: Extreme Decision Making Lessons from the Antarctic.
Also a book about decision-making in extreme life-and-death situations, this one takes a more systematic approach, and offers more substantial and original content, despite being based on an older history: it takes us back to the very first expeditions of early explorer teams to the Antarctic in the early 1900’s. The authors analyze the decisions made by several competing teams and discuss fascinating questions about leadership, as well as followership, under these extreme conditions. Look into it here.

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR



Shortcut to Conflict Resolution With Game Theory

“Fair Outcomes”, an online system, offers an ingenious alternative to conflict resolution, based on the principles of game theory. The ABA journal has just published an article about it.

In contrast to litigation, arbitration, mediation, negotiation, and traditional sealed-bid/split-the difference arrangements, this system offers no incentive or excuse for either party to bluff or posture – or to try to posture through a refusal to use it.

The beauty is that it not only can save both parties an enormous amount of legal fees, but that the outcome is usually more favorable to each party than what that party
had proposed.

The system is very transparent and well documented, so if you’re interested in the topic, take some time to browse the website and think it through. If you prefer videos, here is a series of presentations that explain the underlying principles.



Top