SBenegaL

Category: Participative Decision Making

  • Self-Managed Teams

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of Dialectic Inquiry and Quality Circles as Group Decision Making techniques. In today’s byte, we look at Self-Managed Teams in a bit more detail.

    We have discussed about Self-Managed Team, however in the context of comparing it with Quality Circles and Quality Teams  we would need to note that the self-managed teams are more broad focused and do not limit themselves to quality or related production problems. The decisions self-managed teams do could also include work scheduling, job assignments, staffing etc – all these were once reserved only for the managers. Another difference is that these self managed teams have a delegated authority, unlike quality-circles which have a predominantly advisory role.

    There is however a risk of falling trap to the issues of becoming a cohesive group – groupthink issues could arise. So the key to break this is by encouraging and welcoming dissent among members. This helps break down complacency and sent in motion a process the ability to make better decisions – methods like dialectic inquiry or devil’s advocacy would be really useful here.

  • Dialectical Inquiry and Quality Circles

    In the last byte, we looked at Nominal Group Technique and Delphi Technique of group decision making. In today’s byte, we look at Dialectical Inquiry and the concept of quality circles. 

    Dialectic Inquiry essentially refers to two opposing sets of recommendations and the debate between these opposing recommendations. While it sounds like conflict – it is a constructive approach as it helps the benefits and limitations of both sets of ideas emerge.

    The key to make this method effective is the ability to look beyond the win-lose as an individual attitude and instead focus on reaching the most effective solutions for all the concerned parties. Framing thus becomes an important aspect when detailing the decision in question.

    Quality circles refer to the method where a small voluntary group meets up to provide inputs on solving quality or production problems. It could be seen as a means to extending participative decision making in teams. Managers generally listen to the recommendations and implement the same.

    This is a bottom up approach that helps the manager gets valuable inputs into his decision making while still retaining authority in the decision making.

  • Nominal Group Technique and Delphi Technique

    In the last byte, we looked at brainstorming and its types and the benefits each form gets to the table. In today’s byte, we look at Nominal Group Technique and Delphi Technique.

    Nominal group Technique is a structured approach to group decision making that focuses on generating alternatives and choosing one. It could be seen as containing the following steps:
    1. Individuals silently list their ideas
    2. Ideas are written on a chart one at a time until all ideas are listed
    3. Discussion is permitted for clarification only, and not for criticism.
    4. A written vote is taken
    This method could be used when group members are frightened of criticism.
    Delphi Technique is one in which the judgments of experts are gathered and a decision is taken. The experts from remote locations respond to a questionnaire and the coordinator summarizes the responses which are then sent to the experts. The experts then rate the various alternatives generated and the coordinator tabulates the results!

  • Brainstorming

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on various techniques of decision making. In today’s byte, we look at the technique of brainstorming.

    Brainstorming is a good technique for generating alternative. Brainstorming is a technique for generating as many ideas as possible on a given subject, while suspending evaluation until all the ideas have been suggested. Participants are encouraged to build on the suggestions of other members in the group than criticize it.

    It is always possible that the participants engage in discussion amongst themselves that cam make them loose focus and this in some ways reduces the efficiency of group brainstorming.

    Verbal brainstorming is a traditional way of brainstorming and a recent trend is that of electronic decision making. The electronic brainstorming which uses an anonymous inputs overcomes two common problems that can produce group brainstorming failure:

    1. Production Blocking
    2. Evaluation Apprehension
    Production blocking happens as individuals are exposed to the inputs of others as these individuals are distracted by other’s inputs. The fear that others might respond negatively to their idea is captured by evaluation apprehension.

  • Group Decision Making 4

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of group polarization. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on some of the techniques of group decision making.

    Group decision making as a process begins with the realization for the need to apply group decision making into the current problem. There are several techniques that we would discuss going further are:

    1.   Brainstorming
    2.   Nominal Group Technique
    3.   Delphi Technique
    4.   Devil’s Advocacy
    5.   Dialectical inquiry
    6.   Quality Teams
    7.   Self-managed Teams
    Each one of these come in with its own positives and drawbacks. We shall discuss about these in the next few bytes.

  • Group Decision Making 3

    In the last byte, we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of group decision making. In today’s byte, we discuss about which one is a better approach. 

    It is logical for one to ask – would a group decision be more favorable than individual decision making? The simple answer is – it depends! It depends on the kind of task.
     
    On tasks that have a correct solution, it has been found that individuals outperform groups, while if the interaction required is for a long time – has shown the opposite – group outperforms the individual when a long period of engagement is needed.
     
    While initially, there could be a best member in the group – as time progresses and gains more experience the dependence on the best individual becomes less important.
     
    While it is common for managers to believe that group decision is advantageous and likely to be proffered, it comes in with its own liabilities. There are two potential liabilities with the group think approach – groupthink, group polarization!

  • Group Decision Making 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on group decision making. In today’s byte, we look at advantages and disadvantages of this process. We shall list down the same here to begin with:

    Advantages:
    1. Greater Knowledge and information due to pooling of group member resources
    2. Increase acceptance and commitment to the decision due to the involvement of members in decision process
    3. Greater understanding about the decision as the members are involved in various stages of decision making
    Disadvantages:
    1. Pressure within group to conform and fit in
    2. Domination of the group by one forceful member or dominant clique
    3. Amount of time required – greater than an individual making a decision. 

    We shall continue the discussion further in the next byte.

  • Group Decision Making

    In the last byte, we looked at the aspect of how involved participative decision making could be. In today’s byte, we discuss about group decision making. 

    It is common practice that groups are used in decision making. There are two broad highlights of this form of decision making:
    1. Synergy – this refers to a positive force that occurs in groups when group members stimulate new solutions to problems through the process of mutual influence and encouragement within the group.
    2. Social Decision Schemes: refers to simple rules used to determine final group decisions.
    Synergy is definitely beneficial to the decision making process, another related aspect that comes in is the commitment to a decision that flows in along with the group behavior – the knowledge and experience of the team members is voluntarily placed on the table.

    Some examples of social decision scheme are: majority wins, truth-wins etc.

  • Participative Decision Making – Levels of Participation

    In the last byte, we looked at the individual foundations that help foster a participative decision making. In today’s byte, we look at what levels of participation are found to be most satisfying and impact making.

    When multiple people are involved in decision making, managers are generally in charge of the team’s output and it is a must for them to understand some or the all stages where employees could play a role in decision making. Typical stages in decision making are – identifying problems, generating alternatives, selecting solution, planning implementation, evaluating results etc.

    It is commonly seen and also ascertained by research that greater the involvement in all these stages, there is a greater satisfaction the employee finds and this translates into better performance.

    Definitely, the decision process is not the same in all organizations and the culture plays a major role. None the less, in scenarios where the employee participation is not possible at all levels, employees are found to be give high pay-offs if involved in generating alternatives, planning implementations and evaluating results.

  • Participative Decision Making 4

    In the last byte, we looked at the organizational prerequisites (foundations) that assist a participative decision making. In this byte, we look at the individual prerequisites for a participative decision making.

    Research has indicated that there are three individual prerequisites for participation and empowerment at workplace these are:
    1. the capability to become psychologically involved in participative activities
    2. the motivation to act autonomously
    3. the capacity to see the relevance of participating for one’s own well-being.
    The first aspect of psychological involvement is extremely essential as a failure to be involved could be empowered could make them ineffective. Ex: Cultural aspects like having grown up in an authoritarian set up could hamper voluntary participation.
    The participative decision making is driven by people who are open to work autonomously – have an internal drive. If the team has dependent people they wouldn’t be effective contributors to the effort.
    The ability to look at a personal benefit (not short term alone but also long term) becomes important if one is to become an effective member of such a team.