[Week1]   [Week2]   [Week3]   [Week4]   [Week5]   [Week6]   [Week7]   [Week8]  [Week9]

Managerial Decision Making Session-By-Session Outline

Week 4

Link to Week 4 Survey

Sessions 7-8: (April 14-15) (Classic Heuristics continued) Anchoring and Adjustment; and Social Heuristics

Week 4 Writing Assignment (if chosen, due in class Tuesday):

Rational decisions are often defined as those that are made based on the weight of the evidence. That is, the framing of the idea or manipulation by the influencer should have little or no effect (the invariance principle). The book, Influence, by Robert Cialdini, however, suggests that by applying six tactics, "compliance experts" can get their boss, surbordinates, or clients, to say "Yes" in situations where they actually would want to say "No".

Write up a (perhaps autobiographical) mini story or scenario in a managerial/business setting, where you or someone you know manipulated others using one or two of the above-mentioned tactics; or, were/was manipulated by a "compliance expert". Concentrate on the ethical and reputational dilemma of legitimate influence versus illegitimate manipulation faced by the parties involved. Consider future similar situations, what are effective measures that one could take to avoid being manipulated, or illegitimately manipulating others?

Week 4 PowerPoint slides

Session 7: Anchoring and Adjustment

After-class Review Questions:

1. Why can the anchoring heuristic lead to biased decisions?

2. What causes us to anchor? What steps can we take to prevent the anchoring bias?

3. Try to make a list of managerial situations in your future career in which you or your colleagues are likely be become anchored. What can you do about it?

Topics: 

  • Frames of Reference
  • Endowment Effects
  • Anchoring in IPOs

Session 8: Social Heuristics

BEFORE-CLASS Readings:   

*** Influence: Science and Practice, by Robert B. Cialdini

Topics: 

  • Fixed Action Patterns and Trigger Features
  • The Contrast Principle
  • The Fifth W: "because . . . "
  • Reciprocation
  • The Concession Principle
  • Commitment and Consistency: Cognitive Dissonance
  • Social Proof
  • Liking
  • Authority
  • Scarcity

Class Preparation and Discussion Questions:

  1. These are social heuristics to which we can easily fall prey, and the best way to keep that from happening is awareness. Awareness "happens" from a multitude of examples. I plan to ask each one of you for at least one "social historic" example. Think back! I'm sure you have some good stories to tell.
  2. Good decisions occur not just from active rational choices but also from resisting subtle, psychological traps. As you read Influence, make a list of the "compliance techniques" that Cialdini describes that have already or may be used against you in prior or future jobs.
  3. A good manager must be able to persuade bosses and subordinates that his or her (hopefully good) decisions should be acted upon. Cialdini suggests that forces other than pure rationality and the merits of the case will play a big role in peoples' commitments. What are or should be the distinctions between ethical and non-ethical means to influence your colleagues?
  4. Think of at least 5 examples in the past of how reciprocation influenced your choices. In how many cases were your choices sub-optimal because of this pressure? Describe.
  5. Is the concession principle always the best initial idea in negotiations? How does it relate to other earlier topics in this course?
  6. What principles should you know and actively remember to defeat salespeople or other compliance experts at their game of trying to bilk you?

[Previous Week]  |  [HOME]  |  [Next Week]