Group Think
Sharing Decision Making
Problems with Groups
Governing Values
●
Win, don't lose
➢
●
Maintain control
➢
●
Don't listen–someone may disprove your POV
Brainstorming may lead in unanticipated and
uncomfortable directions
Avoid Embarrassment and Stay Rational
➢
Revealing POV and logic may expose you to
ridicule or negative criticism
Leader Effectiveness Training
●
Problem solving steps:
1. identify and define the problem
2. generate alternative solutions
3. evaluate alternative solutions
4. decision making
5. implementing the decision
6. follow up to evaluate the solution
●
However, the process is a bit fuzzy.
Success is all in the ego-less active listening.
Group Decision Making
●
Four negative outcomes
●
No consensus
➢
Problem not sufficiently engaged
➢
Postpone making a decision
➢
Suffer whatever costs accrue from delay
Group Decision Making
●
Bad consensus “Groupthink”
➢
➢
➢
Poor decision: does not make full use of
members' logic and data
Over-responsible member's views prevail
Under-responsible member's views ignored or
suppressed, they retreat and watch.
➢
Due to conformity pressures,
➢
Fear of conflict,
➢
Anxiety: fear of rejection, abandonment
Group Decision Making
●
False consensus
➢
➢
Group appears to reach a choice
Under-responsible members have not voiced
their opposition
➢
Silent parties resist taking action,
➢
Subsequently undermine the choice,
➢
In the future, ask to revisit the choice.
➢
We kid ourselves that we agreed.
Group Decision Making
●
Weak consensus
➢
Path of least resistance
➢
Directive to make a decision quickly
➢
➢
The choice has minimal enthusiasm or
commitment
Choice is unwound or reversed at the first sign
of trouble
The Choice Structuring Process
●
Produces robust and compelling choices
➢
➢
➢
Sound logic applied to valid, representative
data
Logic and data subject to thorough and open
testing
Representative data comes from all relevant
group members
●
Without violating Governing Values
●
Without triggering Responsibility Virus
Reframing
Existing Frame
●
●
●
I know the right
answer
Other is
uninformed or illintentioned
Task: Get them to
see things my way
Altered Frame
I have a wealth of
experience but I may not
see or understand
everything
Other may see things I don't
see which may contribute
to my understanding
Use our collective talents to
make the best choice
How we reason (Kathryn Schulz)
●
Humans use inductive reasoning
➢
➢
➢
From the particular to the general
Pattern recognition used to
learn language, organize the world into
meaningful categories, and grasp the
relationship between cause and effect
conclusions are not necessarily true,
but they are probably true.
➢
It's fast, effective, subjective but agreeable.
➢
“The giraffe had a very long ____.”
How we reason (Martin)
●
●
Sally and Richard had a meeting with a
customer
Customer: “I really like VisionTech. It has
been an innovative leader for a long time.
But I'm coming under increasing pressure
and have to make tradeoffs.”
Ladder of Inference
(Martin/Argyris)
●
Sally selects her data:
➢
➢
●
“I really like VisionTech. It has been an
innovative leader for a long time.”
Didn't take notes. Can't remember everything.
(It's what I want to hear.)
Make sense of data:
➢
What is the particular observation here?
➢
customer values our leadership and innovation
Ladder of Inference
(Martin/Argyris)
●
●
Sally names (categorizes) her data:
➢
From particular observation to general pattern
➢
customers value leadership and innovation
Understand / evaluate:
➢
➢
●
Induction to Intuition
customers will stick with us if we continue to
lead and innovate
Decision for success:
➢
leadership and innovation are most critical
Ladder of Inference
(Martin/Argyris)
●
Richard selects his data:
➢
➢
●
“But I'm coming under increasing pressure
and have to make tradeoffs.”
Didn't take notes. Can't remember everything.
(It's what I want to hear.)
Make sense of data:
➢
➢
What is the particular observation here?
customer will make tradeoff against us because
of cost pressure
Ladder of Inference
(Martin/Argyris)
●
●
Richard names (categorizes) his data:
➢
From particular observation to general pattern
➢
customers are feeling intense cost pressure
Understand / evaluate:
➢
➢
●
Induction to Intuition
customers will migrate away from us due to
their cost concerns and our pricing
Decision for success:
➢
Reduce our costs to be more price competitive
Ladder of Inference
(Martin/Argyris)
●
When Sally and Richard meet...
●
Sally says we need more R&D
●
●
●
Richard says we need a more efficient
supply chain
The other one “simply doesn't get it”
Governing Values push to them to
withdraw rather than risk an embarrassing
or defeating challenge to their data and
logic.
How bad news travels up
Our development process is a
●
venture of creativity (the CEO was told)
●
undertaking of new ideas (the VP heard)
●
collective of stimulated germination
●
accumulation of forceful fertilizer
●
raised mass of powerful manure
●
mound of strong smelling crap
●
pile of stinking shite (the developer said)
Group Process Principles
●
We all Win, No one Loses
➢
Disassociate options from individuals
➢
Options up for discussion are owned by group
➢
Conflicting positions resolved based on testing
data and logic.
Group Process Principles
●
Maintain Control
➢
➢
●
When supporting an option, individual can
affect how the option is considered by others
When opposing an option, individual can set
the test for the option and the standard of
proof for the test
Avoid embarrassment
➢
Disassociate options from individuals
➢
Draw out all options, even if outlandish
Group Process Principles
●
Stay rational
➢
●
A logical, not emotional, reason for including
every option
The process inoculates against downsides
of Governing Values
Brainstorming
●
●
Brainstorming as originally defined by
Alex Osborn in 1953 effective at generating
lots of ideas...
Just not quality ideas
Brainstorming
For quality ideas:
1. Individual thought and generation
2. (Anonymous) posting of ideas to wiki or
other social collaboration
3. Verbal and text discussion posted while
allowing further posting of ideas
➢
➢
Further posting avoids queuing/waiting to
speak and thus forgetting.
Posting allows everyone to catch up.
Choice Structuring Process
●
What is the issue?
1. Frame Choice Options
●
convert issue into at least two mutually
independent options that might resolve
the issue
➢
Choice is an irreversible commitment
➢
Group must understand consequences
➢
Any member can add an option to choice set
Choice Structuring Process
2. Brainstorm Possible Options
●
●
●
Option told in the form of a story
describing a positive outcome.
Story has internal consistency in its logic
Does not need to be proven at this point as
long as it could be valid
●
Story tells why an option could make sense
●
Easier to understand than data and logic
Choice Structuring Process
3. Specify Conditions
●
●
●
●
What conditions must be substantiated to
believe that the story is sound?
Reverse engineer from an assumed valid
conclusion to the logic and data that would
have to hold true.
Not whether the conditions are true
Just what would have to be true
Done by the group, not the individual who
raised the option
Choice Structuring Process
3. Specify Conditions
●
●
●
Those with reservations speak out.
If the conditions survive the test, public
validation will generate commitment.
If the conditions are invalidated, the
option has been fairly considered and
failed on its merits (not because anyone
was wrong)
Choice Structuring Process
4. Identify Barriers to Choice
●
●
What conditions from step 3. are least
likely to hold true?
Skeptical members are taken seriously
Choice Structuring Process
5. Design Valid Tests
●
●
●
●
Key barrier conditions are tested in ways
the entire group will find compelling
Group must regard test as valid
Most skeptical member is critical for test
design. They will have highest standard of
proof for the test.
May be multiple tests for a condition
Choice Structuring Process
5. Design Valid Tests
●
Tests enable each member to believe in the
choice, commit to it, and take action if the
analysis confirms the condition
Choice Structuring Process
6. Conduct Analysis
●
●
●
●
Do analysis prescribed by test design
Most expensive and time-consuming part
of choice process
Test conditions in reverse order of group's
confidence. It quickly eliminates options
and other tests for those options.
Skeptical member oversees the analysis
Choice Structuring Process
6. Conduct Analysis
●
●
Skeptic sees that test is done with rigorous
standards
If skeptic says the condition is confirmed,
group will find the result compelling
Choice Structuring Process
7. Make the Choice
●
●
●
●
Group has a shared understanding of logic
and data supporting each option
Group has designed tests for each
condition acting as a barrier to choice
Most skeptical member has set standard of
proof and has overseen the analysis
Group reviews test results and makes the
often obvious choice.
Choice Structuring Process
●
●
●
●
The process is about suggesting any option
that presents a clear choice of action.
Only positive conditions are proposed to
support the option.
Conditions are tested by the most
skeptical.
If the option is set aside, it is not the
option that was bad but the condition to
support it was not present.