New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

High Reliability Organizations

by: Whitney Ehinger

High Reliability Organizations Comm 3223

Marketplace > University of Oklahoma > Comm 3223 > High Reliability Organizations
Whitney Ehinger
GPA 3.6

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Learn about HRO's and HRT's
Small Group Communication
Dr. Ryan Bisel
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Small Group Communication

Popular in Department

This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Whitney Ehinger on Monday November 2, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to Comm 3223 at University of Oklahoma taught by Dr. Ryan Bisel in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 9 views.


Reviews for High Reliability Organizations


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 11/02/15
Small Group Organization 11/02/2015 ▯ ▯ October 19, 2015 ▯ HRO - High Reliability Organization ▯ Feedback and Learning: ▯ Negative feedback hurts the ego, but it may be the most important part of learning. ▯ Summative feedback: the summary of the whole feedback ex: 42/50 not necessarily in detail. ▯ Formative feedback: describes the form and the substance of the feedback why you got the grade you did. ▯ If you only get positive summative feedback you should worry because not enough detail about what went right or what went wrong. ▯ You may obtain feedback through prospective and retrospective ways of obtaining feedback. ▯ Prospective: Process-orient. Scenario Planning. Ask the right questions, Invite disagreement. Explore negative consequences. Before the action. Talking about the worst thing that could happen and how to handle that, scenario planning. This is all about having contingency plans. The “what-if” situations. ▯ Retrospective: Process-orient, After Action Reviews (AAR). Collect lessons and best practices. Hold each other accountable to learn those. What we see mostly in school. ▯ After Action Reviews (AARs) ▯ (mortality or morbidity)  What was planned?  What actually happened?  What did we do?  What did we learn? ▯ Feedback: Beware, Ego Defense  Individuals tend to blame others, we want to protect our identity o Fundamental Attribution error: Individuals tend to attribute others short comings to internal forces like their character. While attributing their own short comings to external forces.  Highly- cohesive groups dismiss corrective feedback. o Denial, fantasy, displacement, etc.  Make sure that you are always open with confession about the mistakes that you have done wrong. This will improve individual accountability. ▯ HRO’s ▯ Enhance commitment to excellence by  Actively seeking knowledge about what they don’t know  Designing reward systems that recognize the cost of failures and the benefits of reliability  Communication the whole picture to all levels of the organization ▯ Sensitivity to Operations: must use closed loop communication and information exchange to promote shared situation awareness. ▯ Commitment to Resilience: must develop shared mental models that will allow team members to monitor others’ performance and offer back- up assistance when needed. ▯ Deference to expertise: must demonstrated collective orientation that allows members to be assertive, take advantage of functional expertise, and seek and value input from other team members. ▯ Reluctance to Simplify: must seek to recognize complexities of their task environment and accordingly develop plans that are adaptable and promote flexibility. ▯ Preoccupation with Failure: must use semi-structured feedback mechanisms such as self-correction to manage, trap, and quickly learn from errors. ▯ Team self-correction training: training teams to identify errors and give constructive feedback. ▯ Scenario Based Training: train teams to keep asking the ‘what if’ questions to look at worst case scenario ▯ Guided Error Training: Go through scenario but add someone to add hurdles in the way of getting the job done correctly ▯ ▯ Managing Mindfully  To generate action that is more reliable, resilient, and mindful, then you must make the five principles involving failure, simplification, operations, resilience, and expertise a higher priority. ▯ Essential HRT Values: ▯ Anticipate!  Preoccupation with Failure: chronic concern for error and explaining explicitly the mistakes that should not be made, things can go wrong, figure out what do when those things go wrong. Have the conversation “what if”.  Reluctance to Simplify: avoiding crude labels and categories that hid nuance and detail, when people say “just” they are trying to simplify, talk about mindfulness publicly  Sensitivity to Operations: responsive in an ongoing manner by monitoring and detecting trouble, even if small, continuous monitoring, no news is bad news, make sure you are over sensitive about what is going on around you. ▯ Containment!  Commitment to Resilience: absorbing strain and mitigating unexpected error, often through redundancy, making back up or contingency plans, this shows a great commitment to resilience  Deference to (“Disturbed”) Expertise: pushing decision making “down and around” to whoever knows the circumstance best, whoever knew best should be able to make the decision ▯ ▯ HRO/HRT (Adaptive): able to adjust, Vigilant, Humility  PWF: Preoccupation With Failure  R2S: Reluctance to Simplify  S2O: Sensitivity to Operations  C2R: Commitment to Resilience  D2E: Deference to Distributed Expertise LRO/LRT (Maladaptive): not able to adjust, Complacent, Pride  PWS: Preoccupation With Success  E2S: Eagerness to Simplify  I2O: Insensitivity to Operations  U2R: Uncommitted to Resilience  D2A: Deference to Authority ▯ ▯ Interaction Diagram: Way of describing informal patterns in communication.  Show us Frequency and flow ▯ Myth about Innovation: Innovations spring from revolutionary “big” ideas or grand schemes. Collection of small wins for the win!  Israeli military and the Six Days War  Russian military and the Battle of Stalingrad (Russia won) ▯ We’re looking for small wins: a way of improving the situation here and now without confronting the system. ▯ ▯ “Organizational” Learning? All are cognitive biases ▯ Why are organizations bad at change? Because they are bad at learning. ▯ Complacency and Pride will always get in our way of adapting  Organizations come from individuals who make teams, this is terrible news! ▯ Problems with Individuals’ Learning  Confirmation-bias: individuals tend to seek to confirm their own ideas, guesses, and beliefs rather than seek disconfirming information.  Hindsight-bias: Individuals tend to forget when their predictions were wrong. MBA students  Fundamental attribution error: individuals tend to attribute others’ shortcomings to their character, while attributing their own shortcomings to external forces. ▯ Problems with Teams’ Learning  Responsibility-bias: the belief of group members’ that someone else in group will do the cognitive work. (Social Loafing)  Social desirability bias: group members are reluctant to provide critical assessments for fear of losing face/relational status  Master facilitators are usually people we DO NOT want around  Groupthink: Failure to evaluate alternative decision solution critically. (consensus-seeking)  Identification/Ego Defense: Highly identified group members begin to associate their identity (self-concept) with their group membership and will in turn refuse to see the group as wrong (and themselves as wrong by extension) Ex: Sandusky trials  Shared Information bias: Group members tend to under-value information that a single member shares with the group, especially when that information conflicts with their prior conclusions. Groups spend more time discussing shared, rather than unshared information. o Discussion probabilities: more people know same info the more likely you are to discuss those bits of info. o + Negotiation focus: did you come to the meeting with a preferred outcome already in mind? We come to meetings knowing the position we want to advocate for. ▯ What are we to do? ▯ Confirmation bias: individuals tend to seek to confirm their guess, ideas, and decisions, not seek to disconfirm them.  Ask, why won’t this work?  What is wrong with the plan?  Sure it’s good, how do we make it great?  What is the missing ingredient? ▯ Process Orient!: the better the process, the better the product.  How do we hole each member accountable for this?  How do we know what we know?  Lets suppose we’re wrong, now what?  How do we encourage active dissent and disagreement? o Making sure you have a critical advisor ▯ ▯ Standard Agenda: Process – orient ▯ 1. Problem Identification  current vs. desired state of affairs ▯ 2. Problem analysis  what is the problem? (VIT) ▯ 3. Criteria Solution  what would a good solution look like? (VIT)  this does not mean to establish solutions  the best solutions will be cost effective, meet all the criteria, make it so I don’t have to come back, etc. 4. Solution Generation: 5. Evaluate Solutions 6. Solution Implementation Nominal Group Technique (NGT): Process – orient  individuals generate solutions on their own  all ideas listed and discussed  individuals rank their five favorite ideas o Best idea = 5  Idea with highest average is chosen ▯ Brainstorming: Process – orient  Generate as many ideas as possible  Work quickly  Do not edit ideas until later in the process  “hitchhike” on ideas  do not criticize others ideas  record ▯ Assigned Roles: Process – orient  Formal Roles: o Process observer o Critical Advisor (aka devil’s advocate)  Must speak up  Must be willing to see both sides o Non-voting facilitator  Garnish with o Consensus: any decision everyone must be unanimous  Takes a lot of time or else may be groupthink o Voting o Ranking  Can protect face o Anonymity?  Use of ICTs? Information communication technology ▯ ▯ Decision-Making Procedures: Now What but HOW…  Standard Agnda  NGT  Brainstorming  Critical Advisor  Consensus  Voting  Ranking ▯ Weaknesses? time-consuming ▯ ▯ Let’s Consider ****  The science is clear: o Decision making procedures improve the quality and consistency of team decisions  The practice and application is not: o Working professionals rarely use formal decision procedures o Why? o Because people simply do not know, maybe people are eager to simplify, they have negotiation focus and don’t trust the answer is in someone else’s mind, concern about looking nerdy, an idea of team romance ▯ ▯


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Allison Fischer University of Alabama

"I signed up to be an Elite Notetaker with 2 of my sorority sisters this semester. We just posted our notes weekly and were each making over $600 per month. I LOVE StudySoup!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.