Group Decision Making
• Up to 40% of a manager’s time is
spent in meetings
– All meetings involve decision making
What Experienced
“Problem Solvers” say ...
• First four steps
– Collect and analyze information and data
– Talk with people familiar with the problem
– If at all possible, view the problem firsthand
– Confirm all findings
• The next four steps
– Determine if the problem should be solved
– Continue to gather information, search literature
– Form simple hypotheses and quickly test them
– Brainstorm potential causes and solution
alternatives
Duncker Diagram Worksheet
Problem
Achieve
Make it OK
NOT to
What
What
to do
to do
How to do it
How to do it
Group Decision Making
• Advantages
– More complete information (diversity of
experience, perspectives)
– Identify / generate more alternatives
– Increases acceptance of solutions
– Increases legitimacy (democratic ideals,
regardless of legitimate power)
– Tend to be more accurate / better
– More effective
Group Decision Making
• Disadvantages
– Time consuming
– Potential for imbalanced influence /
contribution
– “Group-think” (pressure to conform)
• Undermines individual’s critical thought
– Ambiguous responsibility
– “Size” sensitive (5 - 7 is ideal)
– Tend to be slower than individual
decision making
– Less efficient
Management Science model
• Analogous to Rational Model
• Clarity of problem
– Problems are analyzable
– Problems are well structured
• Clarity of decision criteria
• Identify relevant variables
– Suited to large number of variables
– Issues of complexity
Management Science model
• Advantages / Disadvantages
– Difficulties in incorporating appropriate
criteria
– The nature of the data used to arrive at a
decision
• High in “Quantity”
• Low in “Richness”
Carnegie Model
• Analogous to a “Behavioral Model”
(applying bounded rationality)
– Based upon uncertainty / ambiguity
• Goals & Objectives
– Frequently ambiguous or inconsistent
– Creates disagreements about priorities
• Managers intend to be rational
– Constrained by cognitive capabilities
– Seek to gather information - reduce
ambiguity
Carnegie Model
• Coalition formation
– Facilitates prioritization
– “satisficing” rather than optimization
– Managers more concerned with short-run
• Problemistic search
– Immediate environment for solution that will
quickly solve problem
– Don’t expect “perfect solution
– First satisfactory solution presented
Carnegie “process”
Carnegie Model process
Uncertainty
Information limitations
Many constraints
Different constraints
Coalition Formation
Joint discussions
Interpret goals
Interpret problems
Search
Simple, local search
Established procedures
(if appropriate)
Create solution (if needed)
Share opinions
Conflict
Satisficing behavior
Different goals
Establish problem priorities
Different opinions
Different values
Different experiences
Obtain support for problem
Obtain support for solution
First acceptable alternative
Incremental Process Model
• Another “behavioral model”
– Less emphasis on social factors
– More emphasis on structured sequence of
activities
– Most decisions = nonprogrammed
• Require “custom” solutions
Incremental Process Model
• Major organizational choices
– Series of small choices
– Combining to produce major decision
– “Nibbles” vs. “Bites”
• Decision “Interrupts”
– Barriers
– Requires cycling back through previous
decision
• Trying something “new”
Incremental Process Model
• Identification
– Recognition
– Diagnosis
• Development
– Search / Screen alternative solutions
– Design custom solutions
• Selection
– Judgement / evaluation - choice
– Analysis / evaluation
– Bargaining / evaluation - choice
– Authorization
Organization decision process / uncertainty
Problem Identification
When uncertain:
Carnegie Model
Political and Social processes
Build coalition
Agreement to resolve conflicts
Resolve conflics about goals &
problem priorities
Problem Solution
When uncertain
Incremental process model
Incremental, trial & error
Big problems / little steps
Recycle & try again when blocked
Contingency framework
• Goal Consensus
– Agreement about goals and outcomes
– Agreement
Disagreement
• If agree
– Goals are clear
– Standards of performance are clear
• Tends to be related to diversity of
business
Contingency framework
• Technical knowledge
– Understanding / agreement about “how”
to reach organization’s goals
– Ability to achieve acceptable solution
• Goals = Effectiveness
• Technical knowledge = Efficiency
Contingency Decision Situations
High
High
Goal
Consensus
1
Low
2
Problem Ident.
Problem Ident.
Low Uncertainty
High Uncertainty
Problem Solution
Problem Solution
Low Uncertainty
Low Uncertainty
Technical
Knowledge
3
Low
4
Problem Ident.
Problem Ident.
Low Uncertainty
High Uncertainty
Problem Solution
Problem Solution
High Uncertainty
High Uncertainty
Contingency Decision Models
High
High
Goal
Consensus
1
Low
2
Individual
Individual
Rational approach
Computational
Bargaining
Coalition formation
Organization
Organization
Management Science Model
Carnegie Model
Technical
Knowledge
3
Low
4
Individual
Individual
Judgement
Trial & Error
Bargaining & Judgement
Inspiration & Imitation
Organization
Organization
Incremental Process
Carnegie & Incremental
Evolving to Garbage Can
Contingency Decision Models
High
High
Goal
Consensus
1
Low
2
Individual
Individual
Rational approach
Computational
Bargaining
Coalition formation
Organization
Organization
Management Science Model
Carnegie Model
Technical
Knowledge
3
Low
4
Individual
Individual
Judgement
Trial & Error
Bargaining & Judgement
Inspiration & Imitation
Organization
Organization
Incremental Process
Carnegie & Incremental
Evolving to Garbage Can
Conceptions of order
• Reality
– Capability of objective assessment
– “Real” truth
• Causality
– Reality is a chain of causes and effects
– Choices influence results
• Intentionality
– The results were intended
– Decisions are instruments of purpose & Self
Models of intentional decision
• Rational choice
– Evaluating anticipated consequences
– Used in non-programmed decisions
• Learning
– Evaluating past experiences
– Used in both programmed & nonprogrammed
• Matching identity to rule/proc./policy
– “What kind of problem” is it?
– Used in programmed decisions
Garbage Can model
• Problem preference
– Ambiguous
• Unclear, poorly understood
technology
– Cause and effect relationships ambiguous
• Turnover of participants
– Limitations / dynamics of participation
Concept of temporal sorting
• When events occur
– Together
• Events occurring together are associated
with each other
– Distant in time
• Events distant in time are treated as
distant in connections with each other
Importance of “Problems”
• Problems to not appear in particular order
• Problems are not inherently important or
solvable
• Number of choices attached
– Concepts of:
• Recency
• Primacy
• Urgency
• Pressure
Relate to Heuristics
Problem Resolution
• Typically, NOT accomplished
• Generally, “flight” or “oversight” is utilized
• Resolution only occurs
– When choice opportunity is attached
– When system load (energy drains) are light
Possible Results
• What problems get “solved?”
• Oversight
– Choice opportunity without problems attached
• Problem resolution
– Choice opportunity with problems attached
• Flight
– Problems and choice opportunities exceed
available energy
Participants in “System
• Reformers
– Systematic (rational)
• Optimistic, blind faith in consistency
• Pragmatists
– Exploit the system (self-serving)
• Assumes everyone else is naïve
• Enthusiasts
– Encourage organization attention/flexibility
• Overestimate tolerance for confusion
Assessing performance of
decision “system”
• Activity
– Problems attached to choice solutions
• Latency
– Problems activated, but not linked to choices
• Decision time
– Time that choices remain unmade
• Hard to improve all 3 simultaneously
– Related to problem structure
– Unstructured problems overload system