Resistance to Using Decision-Making Procedures

Despite evidence that using some form of decision-making procedure results in better performance and greater member satisfaction, few groups choose to adopt and apply them. Poole and DeSanctis (1990) found that the majority of groups did not follow the recommended procedures. Poole (1991) remarks that, "if

procedures seem too difficult or time-consuming, some groups abandon it midstream... They must be encouraged or sanctioned to use them properly" (p. 66). Hirokawa (1987) studied naturally occurring vigilance in group decision- making performance. He concluded that vigilance would not take place to the required degree unless the formal process imposed it upon the group.

Poole (1991) sums it up as follows:

In a nutshell, procedures improve group performance because they make groups uncomfortable. Procedures counteract sloppy thinking and

interaction. Because they go against the grain, procedures are "unnatural" and, hence, uncomfortable for groups (p. 66).

Pavitt (1993) suggests that applying the constraints of formal decision-making "may lead to unnatural group discussion" (p. 223). Groups, it seems, are expected to choose between more effective group decision-making using “unnatural” and possibly uncomfortable procedures and less effective decision-making using “natural” discussion. While ease of use is important when deciding how to guide group decision-making, certainly the procedures or process that promises the highest quality decision should be given the highest priority in spite of any

unharmful discomfort or extra effort required. Perhaps encouraging usage of good decision-making procedures must be seen in the same light as encouraging

people to do other activities that are beneficial, like exercise: the more one does it, the more practiced and comfortable one becomes. Ways to encourage group members (specifically directors) to persevere with decision-making procedures are needed as usage and practice would undoubtedly reduce or eliminate the

discomfort of the activities while simultaneously improving the process and likelihood of a good output. Training in functional procedures and the use a reminder are two methods that may encourage boards to use formal decision- making procedures. These methods are discussed in the following two sections.

3.11.1 The Reminder

Decision makers must not only possess the relevant knowledge and decision- making skills, but must also apply them (Gouran & Hendrick, 1989). Research indicates that groups may not naturally apply rational procedures even when they have been told it will improve their outputs. Finding ways to get groups (such as board of directors) to use effective decision-making procedures, however

Schultz et al. (1995) found that employing a reminder role, someone designated to encourage the group to fulfill the requisite tasks or functions, positively and

significantly influences higher quality decision-making. The reminder role imposes the rational procedures without interrupting group interaction (Frey,1999). The strength of the use of a reminder is that it focuses group members’ attention directly on the requisite functions or processes, which may lead to more effective decision-making: greater consideration of the quality of evidence, the reasoning process, the validity and application of criteria for selecting an ideal solution, etc. Schultz et al. (1995) gave credit to Janis (1982) for suggesting that "The most effective performers... are likely to be those who can be truly devilish by raising new issues in a conventional, low-key style, asking such questions as, 'Haven't we perhaps overlooked...?' ‘ Shouldn't we give some thought to...'" (p. 268).

Establishing the role of reminder may provide a means to increase board

effectiveness: “By raising questions in a non-aggressive style, the reminder helps a group counter act such dysfunctional patterns as faulty information processing, faulty assumptions, faulty evaluation of alternatives, and the undue influence of particular group members" (Schultz et al., 1995, p. 537). This approach to produce better decision-making could be used to improve boards’ adherence to functional procedures.

Conventionally, it is the role of the chair to attend to the board process and be responsible for aiding the group to make effective decisions. Extant literature points to the leader as the most influential member of the group (Schultz, 1982). However, as Fisher (1986) points out, direct attempts by the leader to influence the group are symptomatic of ineffective leadership.

Schultz et al. (1985) considered this when studying the role of the reminder and assigned it to group leaders in some groups and non-leaders in others. The non- leader reminder groups made significantly higher quality decisions than did the groups whose leader also served as the reminder. The explanation offered was

that leaders could not carry out both roles: leader and reminder. Leaders may have attempted influencing the group, which Fisher (1986) has pointed out may result in their contributions being discounted, or perhaps leaders were less willing to perform reminder functions or less able to do the reminder function effectively. Assigning the role of reminder to a non-leader appears to result in more effective imposition of the rational decision-making procedures, which should produce a better process and subsequently, better decision quality.

3.11.2 Training in Procedures

Pavitt (1993) emphasizes the need for adequate training and practice for researching the validity of using formal procedures. While "it is a commonly observed phenomenon that one's participation in a training program frequently results in a mild euphoria which is accompanied by heightened motivation and increased attraction to one's group" (Hall & Williams, 1970, p. 65), there is sufficient research to demonstrate that training does more than enhance

motivation and group attraction. Research on senior management teams (SMTs) supports the advantage of training group members as those managers who received cognitive based training were less likely to evidence groupthink in decision-making situations (Manz & Neck, 1995; Moorhead et al., 1991; Neck & Manz, 1994). Evidence from early studies (cited in Hill, 1982) demonstrates that groups benefited from training in problem solving and group process. Schultz et al. (1995) found that groups trained in rational problem solving processes made higher quality decisions than untrained groups. Several studies show that groups receiving training to promote consensual resolution of conflicts produce better quality decisions than groups without training (Hall and Watson, 1971; Nemiroff, 1976,; Nemiroff and King, 1976).

In one of the studies where training was provided in the assigned procedures, results pointed to the divisibility of the functions: satisfaction of at least two or more of the functions produced significantly higher quality group decisions compared to

groups that failed to complete them (Hirokawa, 1985). These two functions were: (1) ability to understand the problem and, (2) assessing the negative

consequences of the potential solutions.

Formal decision-making procedures are purposefully designed to avoid

unstructured or free discussion. Therefore, for a group to use a formal procedure, they may require training in its use. Functional theory uses a training-process- outcomes approach to small group decision-making (Cragan, 1990; Cragan & Wright, 1993; Jarboe, 1988). However, in all but a few of the published research studies (Hall & Williams, 1970; Hirokawa, 1985; Shultz et al., 1995), no training in the procedure was provided. Hall and Williams (1970) found that "trained groups consistently performed more effectively than untrained groups on measures of decision quality, utilization of superior resources, and creativity" (p. 39); they found "significant superiority of trained groups" (p. 66). Training in functional procedures seems highly likely to enhance usage of rational decision-making procedures, which will be reflected in enhanced decision-making process.