SBenegaL

Blog

  • 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.

  • 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.