Group decision-making. Slide 1

(1)

Module 6 - Segment 5:

Group Decision-Making

Slide 2

Group decision-making

Group dynamics

Group decision- making process Awareness of

communication issues

When we combine an awareness of communication issues with what we learned about group dynamics we can explain a lot about group decision- making processes.

Slide 3

Groups vs. Individuals More Creative

Higher Quality

Faster

Group decision-making (slide 2)

It would probably come as no surprise to learn that when compared to individuals, groups tend to make decisions characterized, on the average, as more creative and of higher quality, but they usually take longer to do so.

Slide 4

Groups vs. Individuals

• More alternatives formulated and considered

The range of opinions and perspectives available in a group naturally provide alternative ways for framing the

problem and approaching solutions. As a result, groups tend to formulate and consider more alternatives than do individuals,

(2)

Slide 5

• Wider range of options

related to the wider range of options,

Slide 6

• Greater depth and breadth of experience

and greater depth and breadth of experiences present in a groups, is follows that groups will tend to come up with superior solutions compared to individuals working alone.

Slide 7

• Greater depth and breadth of experience

• More effective at choosing a solution

On many tasks groups are more effective at choosing a solution to the problem or coming up with an accurate answer than people by themselves.

The price for this superior outcome is time. Groups take longer to make decisions than do individuals.

Slide 8

• There are more views to be stated

Again, this is understandable given that there are more views to be stated, which need to be effectively communicated to a diverse membership.

(3)

Slide 9

• Come to a shared understanding

The group must then come to a shared understanding of these different perspectives,

Slide 10

• Come to a shared understanding

• Ideas must be culled and sifted

and the greater number of ideas must be culled and sifted by multiple parties—each with his/her own

evaluation criteria. It takes time for this process to work.

Slide 11

Group decision-making (slide 10) TIME IS RELATIVE

But time is relative.

Slide 12

TIME Participation

Solo

Decision Made

Decision Made Groups

Individuals

TIME

TIME IS RELATIVE

There is no question that the process of group decision making takes longer than an individual making a decision by him/herself. But to compare only the length of time it takes to MAKE a decision is misleading.

(4)

Slide 13

Problem Identified

Problem Solved Participation

Solo

Decision Made

Individuals

TIME

When the decision is made is only one milestone along the way towards a solution.

Slide 14

Problem Identified

Solo

Decision Made

Individuals

TIME

The problem isn’t fixed or issue solved until the new practice is fully

implemented.

The problem isn’t fixed, or issue solved until the new practice is fully

implemented.

Slide 15

Do It!

Problem Identified

Solo

Decision Made

Individuals

TIME Implementation

Therefore, if one measures time from problem identification until

implementation the supposed

disadvantage of group decision-making is mitigated because one of the

significant advantages of group decision-making (i.e., participative management) is that the people effected by the decision already have ownership of the solution, therefore once the decision is made,

implementation is fast. Unlike unilateral decisions made quickly by a lone manager, but then which must be “sold”

to the workers, whose buy-in is necessary to implement it.

Slide 16

Do It!

Problem Identified

Solo

Decision Made

Individuals

TIME Implementation

Imposed decisions often suffer from significant resistance and can take a very

long time to implement.

Imposed decisions often suffer from significant resistance and can take a very long time to implement. So the investment of time into the group decision-making process can pay substantial dividends when it comes time to implement the chosen solution.

(5)

Slide 17

decision- making

situation

> >

person interaction

unique potential process losses Potential losses

Groups, however, are subject to some unique potential process losses.

Slide 18

situation

> >

person interaction

person

interaction

Group Think

unique potential process losses

Group Think

“Group think” characterizes groups who, due to high cohesiveness, have ceased questioning each other.

Slide 19

Group Think (slide 2)

Conformity pressures are so intense that no one is willing to voice his/her concerns

about the group’s direction.

The conformity pressures are so intense that no one is willing to voice his/her concerns about the group’s direction. And since no one else seems to be concerned, everyone is able to reassure him or herself that their fears are unfounded. Especially when the group is composed of highly competent individuals, the willingness to second-guess each other can be diminished.

Slide 20

lack of differentiation

The lack of differentiation betrays the group as they inadvertently pursue an unwise option.

(6)

Slide 21

lack of differentiation

sometimes make much worse decisions

As a result, groups can sometimes make much worse decisions than individuals would.

Slide 22

situation

> >

person interaction

Devil’s Advocate

Group Think Group Think (slide 5)

One way to avoid falling into the group- think trap is to assign a designated

“devil’s advocate” whose explicit role is to question the assumptions the group is using and voice a different opinion or perspective when none naturally arise.

Slide 23

situation

> >

person interaction

person

interaction

Avoid Group Think

Devil’s Advocate

Forces differentiation

This intentional practice forces differentiation even when none is present.

Slide 24

compromise

situation

> >

person interaction

Group decisions often reflect a compromise between the members' differing positions and opinions.

(7)

Slide 25

compromise

situation

> >

person interaction

Some groups have a tendency to make more extreme decisions than anyone in the group normally would

But some groups have a tendency to make more extreme decisions than anyone in the group ordinarily would.

Slide 26

situation

> >

person interaction

Group Shift Group Shift

This tendency is called group shift, where the opinion or position of the group, as a whole, shifts towards one extreme or the other compared with the personal positions of its members.

Together, they are often willing to take more risks than they would alone.

Slide 27

situation

> >

person interaction

Group Shift

Why?

Group Shift (slide 2)

Why do they do this?

Slide 28

People conform to what they perceive to be a group’s risk-taking norm.

defer to the wisdom of the group

Again rooted in high cohesiveness, people conform to what they perceive to be a group’s risk-taking norm, and thereby defer to the “wisdom” of the group.

(8)

Slide 29

defer to the wisdom of the group get carried away

Perhaps they get carried away by the momentum of the group,

Slide 30

defer to the wisdom of the group get carried away zealously comply

and in an effort to zealously comply to the group’s norm, propose an even bolder or higher or bigger task for the group.

Slide 31

defer to the wisdom of the group get carried away zealously comply

can do more than any could ALONE

Maybe they trust that together they can do more than any could alone.

Slide 32

The shared responsibility of the group for its outcome diffuses personal

accountability.

Most likely, the shared responsibility of the group for its outcome diffuses personal accountability, so people feel free to take greater risks.

(9)

Slide 33

situation

> >

person interaction

person

interaction

Shift into TROUBLE Group Shift (slide 8)

As a result, groups sometimes “shift”

themselves into trouble.

Slide 34

decision- making

situation

> >

interaction PERSON interaction

PERSON

Decision-making

In Module 3 we saw how decisions in organizations were profoundly impacted by the individual differences people bring with them.

Slide 35

Select Best Alternative Evaluate Alternatives Develop Alternatives Allocate Weight to Criteria Identify Criteria Define Problem

Rational decision-making

We considered the idealized “rational decision-making” model,

Slide 36

Defin e Problem

Select First Alternative Evaluate Alternatives Allocate Weight to Criteria

Develop Alternatives

Identify Criteria

“Satisficing”

Closed

Real decision-making

and a compromised version of the

“real” decision-making process. Under the latter topic we considered the ideas of “bounded-rationality” and the

decision-making rule of “satisficing.” As we look at group decision-making I’d like to introduce yet another classic decision-making model.

(10)

Slide 37

“Garbage Can” model

This one is called the “garbage can”

model.

Slide 38

“Garbage Can” model (slide 2)

To describe how decisions are really made researchers identified 4 “pieces”

that must come together in order for a decision to be made.

In an effort to describe how decisions are “really” made in organizations, researchers have identified 4 “pieces”

that must come together in order for a decision to be made.

Slide 39

4 “pieces” are unrelated to each other and kind of “float” around in an organization.

These 4 pieces are unrelated to each other, and kind of “float” around in an organization like pop bottles in a garbage can.

Slide 40

4 “pieces” are unrelated to each other and kind of “float” around in an organization.

Decisions are made when these pieces all happen to connect.

Decisions are made when, in the random mixing which happens in the garbage can, these pieces all happen to connect.

(11)

Slide 41

Problems

Solutions Decision Opportunities

People

The four types of pieces are: 1) problems, 2) solutions, 3) decision- opportunities, and 4) people.

Slide 42

Problems

some are widely known yet never seem to get addressed

The researchers observed that some problems are widely known yet never seem to get addressed.

Slide 43

Solutions

some are discovered before there’s a problem to fix

Sometimes, solutions are discovered before there’s a problem to fix, so they go looking for problems to solve (ever known someone with a new

tool/theory/skill—they are just itching to use it and will try to use it for almost any occasion—whether it’s appropriate or not).

Slide 44

Decision Opportunities

resources to address the problem

Sometimes the problems are well known and solutions are readily available, but there are no resources left over to address them.

(12)

Slide 45

People

The people who work on the problem will impact the shape of the decision

that emerges.

Since problems don’t just fix themselves, one must have the opportunity to work on it.

Slide 46

Problem + Solution + Opportunity + People = DECISION!

And finally, the people who happen to be present when the opportunity, problem and solution come together will impact the shape of the decision that emerges. Their perceptions, their agendas, their commitments, and their resources will all influence the decision that gets made.

Slide 47

The garbage can model …but to describe how is not intended to many decisions

prescribe how ARE made.

decisions in organizations should be made…

The garbage can model is not intended to prescribe how decisions in

organizations SHOULD be made, but to describe how many decisions ARE made.

Slide 48

Rather than being some …decision making

logical and is much more

rational process… haphazard and fluid.

So rather than being some logical and rational process invoked whenever a problem is identified, decision-making within organizations is much more haphazard and fluid than that.

(13)

Slide 49

decision- making

situation

> >

INTERACTION person

person INTERACTION

Dynamic interaction

Decisions emerge from the dynamic interaction between the people involved and the situation in which they find themselves.

Slide 50

Making superior decisions

How can we manage groups and teams to make superior decisions?

All this discussion of the dysfunctions of group decision-making raises the question of how can we manage groups and teams to make superior decisions?

Slide 51

Making superior decisions (slide 2)

How can we manage groups and teams to make superior decisions?

Groups can improve their ability to make good decisions by learning techniques to govern their interactions such that they avoid many of the pitfalls and leverage

the group’s potential.

Research has shown that groups can improve their ability to make good decisions by learning techniques to govern their interactions such that they avoid many of the pitfalls and leverage the potential of the group as a

resource.

Slide 52

Decision-making techniques

There are a variety of decision-making techniques groups can use depending upon their situation or task.

(14)

Slide 53

Decision-making techniques (slide 2)

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a productive means to prevent ideas from being prematurely stifled.

Slide 54

Brainstorming

“Nominal” group technique

The “nominal” group technique insures widespread participation while

streamlining the typical process.

Slide 55

Brainstorming

“Nominal” group technique Technology

New technology enables

geographically-dispersed groups to work together despite their distance.

Slide 56

Brainstorming

“Nominal” group technique Technology Works efficiently over distances

Some of the same technology has been applied in very local settings to more efficiently tap into the group’s creative potential by having people

simultaneously work at separate computers, but compile their

contributions into a common screen.

(15)

Slide 57

Brainstorming

Allows for multi-tasking

This multi-tasking allows groups to air many more ideas in a much shorter amount of time.

Slide 58

Brainstorming

Allows for multi-tasking Disguises the identity of the contributor Deactivates some of the normal status issues

The additional advantage of this method is that the identity of the contributor can be disguised which deactivates some of the normal status issues that operate around group contributions.

Slide 59

Brainstorming

Allows ideas to stand on their own merit

Ideas stand on their own merit, rather than the status of the person who proposed it.

Slide 60

Brainstorming

Allows ideas to stand on their own merit Establish a group decision-making norm or script

Another way to accomplish this is to establish a group decision-making norm or script.

(16)

Slide 61

Group dynamics

How groups decide is important in determining what they decide.

Slide 62

Consensus

Shown to be a useful decision-making rule for improving the effectiveness of the

group decision-making process

Consensus. Consensus has been shown to be a useful decision-making rule for improving the effectiveness of the group decision-making process.

Consensus is different from majority rule (one person, one vote), or seniority rule (more power, more votes), or even unanimous agreement.

Slide 63

Consensus (slide 2)

Shown to be a useful decision-making rule for improving the effectiveness of the

group decision-making process

Exists when all group members feel that they are able to accept the group’s decision on the basis of

logic and feasibility

Consensus exists “when all group members feel that they are able to accept the group’s decision on the basis of logic and feasibility.”

Slide 64

Consensus (slide 3)

Solution that the group can understand and live with

This doesn’t have to be what they feel is the “perfect” solution, but one that they can understand and live with.

(Expecting to find the ideal solution to which everyone can give whole-hearted endorsement, is an elusive goal).

(17)

Slide 65

Consensus (slide 4) How can groups achieve consensus?

How can groups achieve consensus?

There are 5 rules to the consensus script.

Slide 66

Consensus (slide 5)

• Avoid arguing for your own ideas.

Avoid arguing for your own ideas. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give your opinion. No. Make your case. Share your ideas with the group (as

compellingly as you can), but once stated, don’t keep fighting for proposal.

Stop and listen to the other people’s ideas. Then try to come up with the best, not just your, solution.

Slide 67

Consensus (slide 6)

• Don’t assume a win-lose outcome.

Don’t assume a win-lose outcome. In stalemates, look for the next-most- acceptable alternative for everyone.

This isn’t a personal contest, rather it is a group process. People don’t get

“brownie-points” for whose ideas win.

Everyone in the group wins when the group is successful. The shared interest must be emphasized.

Slide 68

Consensus (slide 7)

• Don’t avoid conflict.

Don’t avoid conflict. (fight for good ideas/ fight based upon merit/ idea conflict not personal conflict) Do not change your mind simply to avoid conflict or to reach quick agreement or maintain harmony. Yield only to ideas that have sound foundations. In fact, you should be suspicious of

agreements that come too quickly, or too easily. In such cases, explore the underlying reasons for this apparent

(18)

Slide 69

Consensus (slide 8)

• Avoid using conflict-reducing techniques or time-saving shortcuts.

Avoid using conflict-reducing

techniques or time-saving short-cuts.

There will always be time pressures, but try to avoid “deciding” by using coin-flips, majority votes, averages, or bargaining. The goal is to dig under the surface and see things differently than you saw them before due to the group’s combining of perspectives. Don’t feel pressure to “reward” a dissenter for

“giving in” on an earlier issue by letting them decide the next. (this isn’t a democracy where everyone’s vote or opinion counts equally, opinions are weighed on their merit.

Slide 70

Consensus (slide 9)

• Avoid using conflict-reducing techniques or time-saving shortcuts.

• Differences of opinion are natural and to be expected.

Differences of opinion are natural and to be expected. Remember that the potential of the group lies in its diversity. Differences are good; seek them out! Try to involve everyone (so we tap into the differences).

Disagreements, while perhaps uncomfortable, can help bring out the range of ideas and information within the group. Exploring differences offers a better chance of finding a superior solution or choice. (If we all think the same, why do we need to “pool” our ideas?!)

Slide 71

Consensus (slide 10)

Consensus is one way to realize the potential of groups while

minimizing their process-losses.

Consensus is one way to realize the potential of groups while minimizing their process-losses.

(19)

Slide 72

Consensus

situation

> >

person interaction

communication

>

Consensus (slide 11)

As you can see, communication plays a key role in a group’s ability to come to consensus.

Slide 73 End of presentation. Close this window to exit.