Analysis of Heuristics

III.Analyzing Heuristics to De-escalate Conflict

In this section, you will analyze the heuristics in the transcripts of the final case study provided and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workplace.

• Appraise the heuristics you found in the transcripts that were the most relevant to the conflict in this case. Support your appraisal with specific examples. For example, was there a bias such as “more is better” or “faster is better”?
• Determine how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions in this case. Support your determination with specific examples. For example, did a heuristic of “people who look like me do a better job” result in a perception of discrimination?
• Determine what techniques your colleague might recommend to help the stakeholders use their past experiences to positively benefit similar interactions moving forward. Support your determination with specific examples.

Guidelines for Submission: Your paper should be 2 to 3 pages in length with double spacing, 12 Times New Roman, and APA formatting.

Module Five focuses on the first of four critical mindsets managers should employ to help when having difficult performance conversations. The following are the four critical mindsets:

1. Lead with behavior
2. Eliminate judgment
3. Inquire with purpose
4. Be clear

Each of these four critical mindsets will be featured in Modules Five through Eight. The first mindset, lead with behavior, is an approach to encourage managers to focus on the employee’s behavior rather than attitude. Behaviors are the ways in which people conduct themselves often towards others and the ways people react in response to certain situations. Conversely, attitudes are set ways of thinking or feeling about someone or something. Behaviors can be changed, whereas attitudes are much more difficult to change. By focusing difficult conversations on behaviors, managers can point out specific examples of performance opportunities. Along with identifying behaviors that need to change, managers can gain understanding from the employee by leaving little room for doubt about an expected change.

An important component to focusing performance conversations on behavior is the manager’s ability to identify behaviors versus attitudes. For example, a manager may identify an employee as a person who knows it all, but that is an attitude. This can be exhibited as a behavior when the employee has a habit of interrupting people during staff meetings. This behavior is an action that can be pointed out to the employee by the manager. Managers should look for the evidence similar to this type of employee behavior when planning a performance conversation. Behavioral actions are best approached as an opportunity for the employee to improve with manager guidance.

Evidence-based actions are based on what a manager observes about an employee’s performance, not what the manager assumes. Managers observe performance and draw assumptions based on what they see. Keeping the conversation focused on the observable facts rather than assumptions allows employees to understand exactly where their performance is falling short of the manager’s expectations.

Figure 5.1

(Green, 2013)

A component of managers’ change in mindset is building relationships based on trust. Being open and honest while providing observable feedback to employees enhances the relationship and mutually builds trust. These behaviors exhibited by the manager show employees that the manager has their best interests in mind. Collectively, the actions help build a trusting relationship that is critical between employees and managers. Another way to build trust is to communicate openly and often. Communication is the key to building trust by delivering key messages to employees.

When there is a breakdown in communication between the manager and employee, it can be useful to use a mediator to assist in resuming effective communication. Allowing a breakdown in communication to continue can be harmful to employee performance, culture, and organizational achievement of goals. In order to avoid this situation, organizations often use a mediator to ensure that communication continues. If a mediator cannot bring the parties together to continue the conversation, an arbitrator can be used. This is a person who will hear both sides of an issue and make a binding decision on the outcome. Finally, if neither of those options is successful, an ombudsman can be helpful to get the parties to speak and resolve the conflict. An ombudsman is a person responsible for investigating the issue and resolving the complaint.

Library Article: How Leaders Can Communicate to Build Trust “The leaders who win are those who communicate openly and often, have a clear and committed communications policy . . . initiate formal and informal programs and assess their own performance.” This article details how senior human resource executives and communication leaders build trust in their communication with their employees.Video: The Confident Supervisor: Conflict Management: Supervisor Training (cc) (3:04) This is a supervisor training video on how to handle difficult conversations, such as inappropriate dress in the workplace.

Library Article: Driving Workplace Performances Through High-Quality Conversations (Optional) “Numerous research studies over the years have attempted to answer the question ‘what constitutes successful leadership?’ These studies have helped the author learn a great deal about leadership success, including the competencies that align with leadership success and the personality facets that might enhance or inhibit performance.” This article details the skills leaders need in order to have effective interactions with team members, subordinates, peers, and other colleagues.