In the Context of Group Decision Making, Groupthink Can Be Prevented by

11.v Decision Making in Groups

Learning Objectives

1. Understand the pros and cons of individual and group conclusion making.
2. Larn to recognize the signs of groupthink.
3. Recognize different tools and techniques for making better decisions.

When It Comes to Determination Making, Are Two Heads Better Than I?

When it comes to decision making, are two heads meliorate than one? The answer to this question depends on several factors. Group determination making has the advantages of cartoon from the experiences and perspectives of a larger number of individuals. Hence, they have the potential to be more creative and atomic number 82 to a more effective conclusion. In fact, groups may sometimes achieve results beyond what they could have done every bit individuals. Groups too make the task more enjoyable for members in question. Finally, when the conclusion is fabricated by a group rather than a single individual, implementation of the conclusion will be easier because group members will exist invested in the decision. If the group is various, better decisions may be made because different group members may accept different ideas based on their groundwork and experiences. Research shows that for top direction teams, groups that debate issues and that are various make decisions that are more than comprehensive and better for the bottom line in terms of profitability and sales (Simons, et. al., 1999).

Despite its popularity inside organizations, group determination making suffers from a number of disadvantages. Nosotros know that groups rarely outperform their best member (Miner, 1984). While groups accept the potential to arrive at an effective decision, they often suffer from process losses. For example, groups may suffer from coordination bug. Anyone who has worked with a squad of individuals on a project can attest to the difficulty of analogous members' work or even coordinating anybody'due south presence in a team meeting. Furthermore, groups can suffer from social loafing, or the tendency of some members to put forth less effort while working within a group. Groups may besides suffer from groupthink, the tendency to avoid disquisitional evaluation of ideas the grouping favors. Finally, grouping conclusion making takes a longer time compared with individual decision making, given that all members need to discuss their thoughts regarding dissimilar alternatives.

Thus, whether an private or a grouping decision is preferable volition depend on the specifics of the state of affairs. For instance, if there is an emergency and a conclusion needs to be made quickly, individual decision making might be preferred. Individual decision making may as well be appropriate if the private in question has all the information needed to make the decision and if implementation problems are not expected. However, if 1 person does not have all the data and skills needed to make the determination, if implementing the conclusion will be difficult without the involvement of those who will be afflicted by the decision, and if time urgency is more pocket-sized, then decision making past a group may be more effective.

Figure 11.fourteen Advantages and Disadvantages of Dissimilar Levels of Conclusion Making

Groupthink

Have you always been in a decision-making group that you lot felt was heading in the wrong direction, but you didn't speak up and say so? If so, you have already been a victim of groupthink. Groupthink is a group pressure miracle that increases the risk of the group making flawed decisions by leading to reduced mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment. Groupthink is characterized by viii symptoms that include (Janis, 1972):

1. Illusion of invulnerability shared by most or all of the grouping members that creates excessive optimism and encourages them to take extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalizations where members downplay negative data or warnings that might cause them to reconsider their assumptions.
3. An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality that may incline members to ignore ethical or moral consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups are seen when groups discount rivals' abilities to brand constructive responses.
5. Direct pressure on any member who expresses potent arguments confronting whatsoever of the grouping's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments.
6. Cocky-censorship when members of the group minimize their own doubts and counterarguments.
7. Illusions of unanimity based on cocky-censorship and straight pressure level on the group; the lack of dissent is viewed as unanimity.
8. The emergence of self-appointed mindguards where one or more members protect the group from information that runs counter to the group'south assumptions and class of activeness.

Figure 11.15

Avoiding groupthink tin can be a matter of life or death. In January 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds afterward liftoff, killing all seven astronauts aboard. The decision to launch Challenger that 24-hour interval, despite issues with mechanical components of the vehicle and unfavorable weather conditions, is cited as an case of groupthink.

While research on groupthink has not confirmed all of the theory, groups do tend to suffer from symptoms of groupthink when they are large and when the group is cohesive because the members like each other (Esser, 1998; Mullen, et. al., 1994). The assumption is that the more oft a group displays one or more of the eight symptoms, the worse the quality of their decisions will exist.

However, if your group is cohesive, it is not necessarily doomed to appoint in groupthink.

Recommendations for Avoiding Groupthink

Groups Should:

• Discuss the symptoms of groupthink and how to avoid them.
• Assign a rotating devil'southward abet to every meeting.
• Invite experts or qualified colleagues who are not part of the core controlling group to attend meetings, and get reactions from outsiders on a regular basis and share these with the grouping.
• Encourage a culture of difference where different ideas are valued.
• Debate the ethical implications of the decisions and potential solutions existence considered.

Individuals Should:

• Monitor their own beliefs for signs of groupthink and change behavior if needed.
• Check themselves for self-censorship.
• Carefully avoid mindguard behaviors.
• Avoid putting force per unit area on other group members to suit.
• Remind members of the ground rules for avoiding groupthink if they get off track.

Group Leaders Should:

• Break the group into two subgroups from fourth dimension to fourth dimension.
• Accept more than than i group piece of work on the same problem if time and resource allow it. This makes sense for highly critical decisions.
• Remain impartial and refrain from stating preferences at the outset of decisions.
• Gear up a tone of encouraging critical evaluations throughout deliberations.
• Create an anonymous feedback channel where all grouping members can contribute to if desired.

Tools and Techniques for Making Ameliorate Decisions

Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was developed to assistance with group determination making by ensuring that all members participate fully. NGT is not a technique to exist used at all meetings routinely. Rather, it is used to structure grouping meetings when members are grappling with problem solving or idea generation. It follows four steps (Delbecq, et. al., 1975). First, each fellow member of the group engages in a period of independently and silently writing down ideas. Second, the group goes in society around the room to gather all the ideas that were generated. This goes on until all the ideas are shared. Third, a discussion takes place around each idea and members ask for and give description and make evaluative statements. Finally, individuals vote for their favorite ideas by using either ranking or rating techniques. Following the four-footstep NGT helps to ensure that all members participate fully and avoids grouping controlling problems such as groupthink.

Delphi Technique is unique because it is a group process using written responses to a series of questionnaires instead of physically bringing individuals together to brand a conclusion. The showtime questionnaire asks individuals to respond to a broad question, such equally stating the problem, outlining objectives, or proposing solutions. Each subsequent questionnaire is built from the information gathered in the previous one. The process ends when the grouping reaches a consensus. Facilitators can decide whether to proceed responses bearding. This process is often used to generate best practices from experts. For instance, Purdue Academy professor Michael Campion used this process when he was editor of the enquiry periodical Personnel Psychology and wanted to determine the qualities that distinguished a practiced enquiry article. Using the Delphi Technique, he was able to gather responses from hundreds of top researchers from around the globe without e'er having to get out his office and dribble them into a checklist of criteria that he could use to evaluate articles submitted to the journal (Campion, 1993).

Majority rule refers to a decision-making dominion where each member of the group is given a single vote, and the option that receives the greatest number of votes is selected. This technique has remained popular, perhaps because of its simplicity, speed, ease of use, and representational fairness. Research also supports majority rule as an effective controlling technique (Hastie & Kameda, 2005). Withal, those who did not vote in favor of the determination volition be less likely to back up information technology.

Consensus is another decision-making rule that groups may use when the goal is to gain support for an thought or plan of action. While consensus tends to take longer in the first place, it may make sense when support is needed to enact the plan. The process works by discussing the problems, generating a proposal, calling for consensus, and discussing any concerns. If concerns notwithstanding exist, the proposal is modified to adapt them. These steps are repeated until consensus is reached. Thus, this decision-making dominion is inclusive, participatory, cooperative, and democratic. Research shows that consensus tin can lead to ameliorate accuracy (Roch, 2007), and it helps members feel greater satisfaction with decisions (Mohammed & Ringseis, 2001) and to take greater acceptance. Even so, groups take longer with this approach and groups that cannot attain consensus become frustrated (Peterson, 1999).

Group decision back up systems (GDSS) are interactive calculator-based systems that are able to combine communication and decision technologies to aid groups make better decisions. Organizations know that having effective cognition management systems to share information is important. Inquiry shows that a GDSS can really meliorate the output of grouping collaborative work through higher data sharing (Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). Organizations know that having effective knowledge direction systems to share information is important, and their spending reflects this reality. According to a 2002 article, businesses invested $ii.7 billion into new systems in 2002 and projections were for this number to double every v years. Every bit the popularity of these systems grows, they hazard becoming counterproductive. Humans can just process so many ideas and information at ane fourth dimension. As virtual meetings abound larger, information technology is reasonable to assume that information overload can occur and good ideas will fall through the cracks, substantially recreating a problem that the GDSS was intended to solve that is to brand sure every idea is heard. Some other problem is the system possibly becoming besides complicated. If the systems evolve to a point of uncomfortable complication, it has recreated the problem of the swell pulpit and shyness. Those who empathise the interface will command the narrative of the discussion, while those who are less savvy volition only exist along for the ride (Nunamaker, et. al., 1991). Lastly, many of these programs neglect to take into account the gene of human psychology. These systems could make employees more reluctant to share data due to lack of control, lack of firsthand feedback, the fear of "flaming" or harsher than normal criticism, and the desire to have original data hence more than power (Babock, 2004).

Figure 11.16

Healthy communication and trust are key elements to effective group decision making.

Decision trees are diagrams in which answers to yes or no questions lead decision makers to address boosted questions until they reach the finish of the tree. Decision copse are helpful in avoiding errors such as framing bias (Wright & Goodwin, 2002). Conclusion trees tend to exist helpful in guiding the determination maker to a predetermined alternative and ensuring consistency of decision making—that is, every fourth dimension certain conditions are present, the decision maker will follow 1 grade of activeness as opposed to others if the decision is made using a decision tree.

Figure 11.17

Using decision trees can amend investment decisions past optimizing them for maximum payoff. A determination tree consists of three types of nodes. Decision nodes are commonly represented by squares. Chance nodes are represented by circles. End nodes are represented past triangles.

Fundamental Takeaway

There are trade-offs between making decisions solitary and within a group. Groups have greater diversity of experiences and ideas than individuals, but they also have potential process losses such every bit groupthink. Groupthink can exist avoided by recognizing the eight symptoms discussed. Finally, there are a diverseness of tools and techniques available for helping to make more than constructive decisions in groups, including the Nominal Group Technique, Delphi Technique, bulk dominion, consensus, GDSS, and decision trees. Understanding the link between managing teams and making decisions is an of import aspect of a manager'southward leading function.

Exercises

1. Do you prefer to make decisions in a group or alone? What are the main reasons for your preference?
2. Have you been in a group that used the brainstorming technique? Was it an constructive tool for coming up with creative ideas? Please share examples.
3. Have you been in a group that experienced groupthink? If so, how did yous bargain with it?
4. Which of the determination making tools discussed in this affiliate (NGT, Delphi, etc.) have you used? How constructive were they?

References

Babock, P. (2004, May). Shedding calorie-free on knowledge management. 60 minutes Mag, pp. 47–fifty.

Campion, M. A. (1993). Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46, 705–718.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Grouping techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Esser, J. One thousand. (1998). Alive and well later 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.

Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of bulk rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). Improving group decisions by ameliorate pooling information: A comparative advantage of group decision support systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 565–573.

Miner, F. C. (1984). Group versus individual determination making: An investigation of functioning measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 112–124.

Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Beliefs and Homo Decision Processes, 85, 310–335.

Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, Due east., & Driskell, J. Due east. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of conclusion making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204.

Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. South., Vogel, D. R., George, J. F. (1991, July). Electronic meetings to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61.

Peterson, R. (1999). Tin can yous take as well much of a proficient affair? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 313–324.

Roch, S. G. (2007). Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benfits of anticipated discussion, consensus, and rater motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 14–29.

Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, Grand. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.

Wright, Grand., & Goodwin, P. (2002). Eliminating a framing bias by using simple instructions to "recollect harder" and respondents with managerial experience: Annotate on "breaking the frame." Strategic Management Periodical, 23, 1059–1067.

millartolly1967.blogspot.com

Source: https://open.lib.umn.edu/principlesmanagement/chapter/11-5-decision-making-in-groups/

Share this post