SBenegaL

Blog

  • Decision Making: Cultural Aspects

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of self-managed teams. In today’s byte, we look at the cultural aspects that one needs to consider in decision making.

    Decision making styles vary a lot across different cultures. Some of these aspects are listed below:
    • Uncertainty Avoidance
    • Power Distance
    • Individual/Collective Dimension
    • Time Orientation
    • Masculine/Feminine Dimension

    Managers make decision day in and day out and it becomes quintessential for them to as much as possible about the decision making processes across culture. With the growth of global organizations, this has become an essential part of the business.

  • 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 Polarization

    In the last byte, we looked at some of the approaches one could take to prevent group think. In today’s byte, we look at the concept of group polarization. 

    Group Polarization refers to the tendency for group discussions to produce shifts towards more extreme attitudes amongst members.  This group phenomenon was discovered by a graduate student!

    The tendency towards a polarized decision making has serious implications for the group decision making overall – groups where initial views lean in a particular direction  – one could expect it to come back as a more extreme view following interactions.

    There are two broad explanations:
    1. Social comparison approach: Individuals generally believe they hold better views than other members, during group discussion they see that their views are not too far away from the average and so they shift to a more extreme position.
    2. Persuasive argument: The group discussions reinforce the initial views of the members and so they take a more extreme position.

    It is possible that in addition to these, there may be other models and the combination of these is what could lead to the polarized attitude!

  • Group Think – 3

    In the last byte, we looked at some of the symptoms of group think. In today’s byte, we look at some of the guidelines that help prevent group think.



  • Group Think 2

    In the last byte, we looked at some of the scenarios that foster group think. In today’s byte, we look at some of the symptoms of group think.

    The following table summarizes the symptoms of group think:




  • Group Think

    In the last byte, we looked at the criteria one could use to make between group and individual decision making. In today’s byte, we look at the concept of group think.

    As mentioned earlier, one of the liabilities any group decision making process could get into is that of “Groupthink”. This is really a dysfunctional process! 

    Group Think could be understood as a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment resulting from pressures within the group! – This was the concept developed by Irving Janis. 

    There are some conditions that favor group think. One of these is the cohesiveness of the group. In cohesive groups, it is common to find a solidarity amongst its members – in such a scenario, these members wouldn’t raise their voice against the group’s general opinion as they risk going against the solidarity of the team!

    Another instance where group think could play a role is when there is a high ranking team which has been working together for a long time – non infusion of new members could result in the existing mental models go unchallenged and they would be more prone to link alike.

    In the next byte, we look at some of the symptoms of group think.