GROUP DECISION MAKING
ADVANTAGES
•
•
•
•
•
•
BROAD REPRESENTATION
TAPS EXPERTISE
MORE IDEAS GENERATED
EVALUATION OF OPTIONS
COORDINATION
HIGH ACCEPTANCE
DISADVANTAGES
•
•
•
•
•
•
TIME CONSUMING
POSSIBLE INDECISIVENESS
COMPROMISE DECISIONS
DOMINATION BY A MEMBER
RISKY SHIFTS
GROUPTHINK
GROUP DECISION MAKING ISSUES
VROOM & YETTON (73)
• TIME AVAILABILITY
• TYPE OF PROBLEM OR TASK
• AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
• NEED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DECISION
• LEVEL OF TRUST
• CAPABILITIES OF SUBORDINATES
• LIKELIHIID OF CONFLICT
PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING
VROOM & YETTON (73)
LEADERS HAVE THREE DECISION MAKING STYLES
AUTOCRATIC
CONSULTIVE
PARTICIPATIVE
FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF STYLE:
1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROBLEM
HOW IMPORTANT IS THE QUALITY OF THE DECISION?
IS THE PROBLEM WELL-STRUCTUERED?
IS TIME CRITICAL?
HOW IMPORTANT IS SUBORDINATE COMMITMENT TO THE CHOICE?
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MANAGER
DOES THE LEADER HAVE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE?
3. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBORDINATES
WILL SUBORDINATES ACCEPT THE LEADER’S DECISION?
DO SUBORDINATES SHARE THE ORGANIZATION’S GOALS?
IS CONFLICT LIKELY AMONG SUBORDINATES (OVER THE CHOICES)?
CAN THEY CONTRIBUTE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE?
VROOM’S DECISION STYLES
•
A1 YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF, WITH YOUR OWN
INFORMATION
•
A2 YOU OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM YOUR SUBORDINATES,
THEN SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF
•
C1 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES
INDIVIDUALLY, WITHOUT BRINGING THEM TOGETHER AS A
GROUP. YOU CONSIDER THEIR IDEAS, THEN MAKE THE DECISION
BY YOURSELF
•
C2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A
GROUP, COLLECTIVELY GETTING THEIR IDEAS, THEN YOU MAKE
THE DECISION BY YOURSELF
•
G2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A
GROUP. TOGETHER YOU ATTEMPT TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON A
SOLUTION. YOUR ROLE IS CHAIR, AND THE GROUP’S SOLUTION
SHOULD BE THE ONE IMPLEMENTED
DEFECTS IN GROUP DECISION MAKING
•
DISCUSSION LIMITED TO A FEW ALTERNATIVES (ONE OR TWO)
•
FAILURE TO REEXAMINE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR WEAKNESSES AND
POTENTIAL RISKS
•
NO SEARCH TO FIND ADVANTAGES FOR OTHER ALTERNATIVES, AND NO SEARCH FOR
WAYS TO MAKE OTHER OPTIONS FEASIBLE
•
LITTLE OR NO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN EXPERT OR OUTSIDE ADVICE
•
A TENDENCY TO IGNORE FACTS AND OPINIONS THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH THE
PREFERRED PLAN OF ACTION
•
NO CONTINGENCY PLANS ESTABLISHED IN CASE SOMETHING GOES WRONG
•
NO ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION FROM A CONTRARY OR ANTAGONISTIC
VIEWPOINT
•
LAUGHING AT DANGER SIGNALS; MAKING LIGHT OF INDICATIONS THAT ALL IS NOT
PROCEEDING SMOOTHLY
•
LEADERS WHO DOMINATE DISCUSSIONS AND MAKE THEIR SUGGESTIONS EARLY, BEFORE
OTHERS HAVE HAD THEIR SAY
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
JANIS (72)
A VERY COHESIVE GROUP THAT IS LIKELY TO MAKE POOR DECISIONS
• OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP
ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY (Superiority)
ILLUSION OF MORALITY
• CLOSEMINDEDNESS
RATIONALIZATION (Discounting Warning Signs)
STEREOTYPED VIEWS OF OUTSIDERS (Not Trusted & Not Very Smart)
• PRESSURE TOWARD CONFORMITY
SELF-CENSORSHIP OF MEMBERS
DIRECT PRESSURE APPLIED TO DEVIANTS
MINDGUARDS (Don’t Let Others/outsiders Influence Us)
ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY (Silence Means Agreement?)
REMEDIES FOR GROUPTHINK
• ASSIGN EVERYONE THE ROLE OF CRITICAL EVALUATOR
SENSITIZATION
• LEADER MUST BE IMPARTIAL
DO NOT INITIALLY STATE YOUR PREFERENCES
• APPOINT AN INTERNAL “DEVIL’S ADVOCATE”
• USE OUTSIDE EXPERTS TO CHALLENGE THE GROUP
THEY MAY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO DO
• DIVIDE INTO TWO OR MORE SUBGROUPS TO WORK
INDEPENDENTLY ON THE SAME PROBLEM
HAVE EACH GROUP REPORT BACK
• HOLD “SECOND CHANCE” MEETINGS TO REAFFIRM
EARLIER THINKING AND DECISIONS
HAVE A “CONFIRMATION” VOTE LATER
BRAINSTORMING
USED TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS OR ALTERNATIVES
RULES:
•
FREEWHEELING IS WELCOME --- OFFER ANY IDEAS THAT COME
TO YOU
•
QUANTITY IS DESIRED --- DON’T WORRY ABOUT QUALITY OR RISK
RIGHT NOW
•
NO CRITICISM OR PRAISE OF IDEAS IS ALLOWED
•
NO QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OF IDEAS --- THAT WILL COME AT
A LATER MEETING
•
COMBINATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF IDEAS IS ENCOURAGED --BUILD ON OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE
•
EACH MEMBER GENERATES A LIST OF THEIR IDEAS AHEAD OF
TIME
•
IDEAS ARE SHARED WITH MEMBERS EITHER AS AN EXHAUSTIVE
LIST, OR ARE PRESENTED ONE AT A TIME WITHOUT COMMENT
•
MEMBERS VOTE BY SECRET BALLOT TO SELECT THE “BEST”
IDEAS WHICH THEY WANT TO PURSUE FURTHER
•
EACH ITEM IS DISCUSSED AND EVALUATED PUBLICLY (Pros and
Cons)
•
FINAL VOTES ARE TAKEN BY SECRET BALLOT
REDUCES THE EFFECTS OF POWER AND STATUS DIFFERENCES
ALL MEMBERS CAN PARTICIPATE AND GET THEIR IDEAS BEFORE THE GROUP
MEMBERS ARE NOT INTIMIDATED BY A DOMINANT MEMBER
DELPHI TECHNIQUE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CAN PROBE THE VIEWS OF INDUSTRY EXPERTS
MATRERIALS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS FOR REACTIONS
OPTIONS ARE INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN AND SENT BACK
SUMMARIES ARE SENT OUT FOR FURTHER COMMENT
ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE COORDINATOR IS CRUCIAL
THE “GROUP” NEVER MEETS TOGETHER
NO FINAL DECISIONS ARE “MADE” BY THIS GROUP
THIS IS A “VIRTUAL GROUP” WHICH CAN BE INTERNET CONNECTED
PROCESS GATHERS THE BEST THINKING & JUDGMENT OF EXPERTS
SUCCESSIVE FEEDBACK REDEFINES AND FOCUSES IDEAS
FINAL DECISIONS ARE MADE BY COMPANY OFFICIALS, NOT THE GROUP