Approaches to Improve Group Decision Making - Literature review Example

DECISION MAKING 1. Introduction In recent years, the Browns Insurance Services became interested and invest a considerable amount to purchase new technology for their call centre located in North East England. However, this investment fails as it did not meet the expectation of the company. Consequently, the company has no choice but to find a solution to the problem. Moreover, Mr. Green (the CEO) is worried that the same Board who decided of this failed investment would make another bad decision in the future. To avoid failure, Mr. Green decided to look into the processes involve in group decision making and find out why the board decision fails and how it can be improved. The following section includes review of theory on the advantages of deciding as a group and the factors affecting group judgement and decisions. Moreover, it also includes discussions regarding different approaches to improve group decision making and finally, recommendations on how the Board of Browns Insurance Services can improved their decision making activities. 2. Group Decision Making People usually make decisions but its importance differs widely from one individual to another (Verplanken and Ola Svenson 1997, p.40). For example, people make unimportant decisions in their everyday life such as everyday purchases that requires little thought. Important decisions are usually made in circumstances where high costs are involved such as investing on a business or purchasing a house. These are decisions that involved significant reasoning and choices from a considerable number of options. In other words, important decisions are essentially being made by people when the outcome of such decision will have a big impact on their well-being as a person (Verplanken & Svension 1997, p.40). According to Ullman (2006. p.17), people are making many important decisions in their life but making the right decision in business organisations is a big issue particularly when this decision will not come from one individual but from a group of people. Deciding in a group has many challenges and basically these problems are arising from differences in interpretation of information and individual thinking coupled by uncertainties, lack of sufficient information, and bad decision making strategy. Typically, decision groups are being formed to make decisions but they don’t always work well. What had happened to Browns Insurance Services may be a product of the following factors. According to Tropman (1996, p.4), some of the reason why they cannot function property includes failure to set expectations, agendas were not created, members are not aware of the exact roles or positions, and lack of determination to arrive at better decisions. These also may include failure to identify problems because of ignorance and lack of knowledge about organisation boundaries and other conditions related to the problem (Lu & Ruan 2007, p.7). Another possible problem that had happened to the company is conflict of interest among members of the Board (Diamond 2006, p.420) since business decision making group involves people with differing views or oriented to a particular department or section. For instance, one or couple of members of the Board may oppose and favour decisions that are more beneficial to their interest rather than the interest of all (Lasher 2007, p.16). According to Hart et al. (1997, p.128), when members of the group is driven by their own desire or organisation interest, the resulting decision may only reflect a balance in power and influence rather than the real solution to the problem. Miscommunication between members of the group is also problem since diversity; particularly in individual culture can result to various difficulties. For instance, a member of the Board may interpret and see the world differently or with different cultural background that will not accept a proposal that is in conflict with his upbringing and cultural beliefs (Weinshall 1983, p.505). One of the most commonly stated problems with decisions making by a group is the fact that it’s often take more time but with little accomplishment. According to Holmes (2008, p.222), deciding as an individual may be more productive since people often decide in less time than groups who often argued for a long time before they can reach a consensus. Decision-making involving group of individuals are often confronted with complexities more difficult than those being encountered by individuals. This is because according to Donaldson (1982, p.115), variables influencing a decision increase significantly along with the number of people that would make the decision and therefore more complex that ordinary individual decision-making. For instance, individual members have different views and more likely to depend their views resulting to longer discussions. Moreover, a group is less consistent than individual person in the long run because group members change thus ideas and variables change. The larger the group means more changing variables and more difficult to decide (Donaldson 1982, p.115). According to Lunenburg & Omstein (2007, p.169), there are five known techniques designed to improve group decision making – brainstorming, nominal group technique, Delphi technique, devil’s advocacy, and dialectical inquiry. The following section discusses these techniques. 3. Approaches to Improve Group Decision Making 3.1 Brainstorming As discussed earlier, group decision making is influenced by a number of factors such as the effects of individual views, beliefs, and the need to maintain the balance of power within the group. For instance, there may be times when group members do not want to criticize other ideas because they are concern with the consequences of unpleasant agreement. Consequently, a number of poor decisions similar to the investment made by Browns are being made because members are giving more emphasis on agreement rather than pushing on critical discussions. According to Hunt (2004, p.185), an effective decision group take advantage of group dynamics and equally consider all members contribution. To attain this, the group must overcome social pressures such as the tendency to conform to the norm, domination by other sub-groups within the decision group, pressures caused by time limitations, and the impact of extremely emotional discussions with the group. One approach in improving decision making within the group is to encourage brainstorming since it can enable the group to come up with more ideas and possible alternative solutions to the problem. Brainstorming allows sharing of ideas without being obstructed by criticism because the process usually disallows evaluation of any ideas until all of them are given. For this reason, brainstorming encourages creativity and various radical ideas which at the end may bring out the most brilliant solution. This approach would discourage social pressures, domination, and avoids heated arguments or discussions that are detrimental to the group. Instead, the process enhances enthusiasm among members and they will become more involve (Hunt 2004, p.186). Brainstorming is generally accepted as technique for generating new and creative ideas and may come structured or unstructured. For instance, if brainstorming follows a certain norm then it is structured. A structured brainstorming session typically starts in identifying and describing the objective of the group then followed by a review of the process required. In contrast, an unstructured brainstorming does not offer same opportunity as members of the decision making group can contribute ideas any time. This type of approach is useful when time allotted for the process is short but it has the disadvantage of letting the idea of the most talkative member to prevail leading to further disarray (Meisenheimer 1997, p.239). 3.2 Nominal Group Technique Another way to enhance group decision making is to ensure focus on decision making task. The common problem with group decision making is that some members tend to insert items that are not in the agenda. For this reason, there must be agenda integrity where only items in the agenda are to be discussed. Keeping focus on items within the agenda avoids time wasting and prevents drifting away from the main issues (Tropman 1996, p.24). A nominal group technique or NGT works by grouping together 5 to 10 members where each one has to come up with their own individual ideas for input. This approach may fit Browns needs since it has 5 to 8 Board members. Here, a complete list of ideas specific to the problem at hand will be submitted for discussion. After this, no more input will be accepted and the group will discuss each idea for clarity and assessment. Each member then on their own sort these ideas in order of their priority or importance and eventually, ideas with the highest priority as sorted by individual members will become the best idea (Kroon 1995, p.194). NGT is intended to generate ideas thus it needs the most relevant people together which is applicable to Brown considering that its Board members are all insurance and finance experts. NGT can be useful in problem identification, exploration of solutions, and promoting consensus among the members of the group (Koksalan & Zionts 2001, p.295). NGT is highly structured and it follows some important stages such as silent generation of ideas, round-robin recording, serial discussions, and selection of the most superior ideas (Koksalan & Zionts 2001, p.295; Dubrin 2008, p.165). 3.3 Dephi Technique Although it may not entirely applicable to Browns Insurance Services needs since Delphi technique is commonly use in marketing and developed to systemically obtain ideas from a larger number of experts in the field, the Board may in some way learn from this technique. Delphi technique is designed for group decision makers that cannot meet physically or face to face. The technique encourages the use of questionnaires for participants to complete. These questionnaires contain questions regarding the issue and other related factors the manager who needs the input is interested about. For instance, if the company’s product development manager of a certain brand wants to know how he can improve his products, he would seek the views of the industry experts and from there input selects the best idea (Griffin & Moorhead 2009, p.244). Knowing these possibilities, the Board may opt to get the opinion of external experts to justify their ideas and enlighten their thinking. The Delphi technique usually involves a lot of decision-making participants and in marketing; the technique even encourages solicitation of ideas all over the world (Martin & Martin 2010, p. 289). Delphi can help build consensus and very useful in creating generic strategies this is because aside from the large number of people involved, Delphi also gathers a large collection of views regarding the issue. After getting the input or individual comments, the data is analyse by the facilitator and will be submitted to the group. The group then discuss the various opinions to reach a consensus or disagree until further information is available (Linkov & Ramadan 2004, p.215). 3.4 Devil’s Advocacy As the name suggest, the Devil’s advocacy improves group decision making by introducing conflict into the process. Devil’s advocacy eliminates inhibition and premature conformity to group norms which are the common weakness of group thinking (Lunerburg & Omstein 2007, p.172). The technique works by appointing one member of the decision making group as a devil advocate whose work is to find faults in the plan or the recommended solution. In this manner, all members of the group will be aware of the disadvantages of the plan or the recommended course of actions (Hill & Jones 2008, p.18). For instance, the group may have decided to put a new convenience store somewhere outside in the city and the devil’s advocate found that sales will be low due to the presence of too many known competitors. The group will therefore think about it and find an alternative solution. In Browns, it may be feasible to have such technique but it is unsure if the Board members can easily adapt to this conditions as they may not have the right person to be the advocate. 3.5 Dialectic Inquiry Of all these strategies to improve group decision making, the dialectic inquiry is the most complex since it requires creation of a plan and a counter plan that contains all possible but disagreeing course of actions. In this technique, an assigned strategic manager will listen to different views coming from the advocate of the plan and the counter plan then make judgement which plan is more feasible (Hill & Jones 2008, p.18). Dialectical inquiry is commonly known as an argumentative approach to group decision making and intended to overcome the limitations of traditional techniques such as inclination to group norms (Greene & Burleson 2003, p.846). It encourages confrontation and debate in support of their position and views about the issue (Lewis et al. 2006, p.165). Once again, Browns’ Board may not have this kind of attitude and probably would not adapt to argumentative approach. 3.6 Combining Decision-making Model – Rational or Political A decision-making group should flexible in order to succeed and gain consensus (Lu & Ruan 2007, p.42). For instance, when one decision fails, group members have no other way but to negotiate or seek compromise to achieve the required consensus. One model that can deal with the complexity of group decision making is the rational model. Rational model according to Lu & Ruan (2007, p.42) is based on objectives, alternatives, consequences, and optimality. This means that decision maker should believe that complete information can increase accuracy thus right decision can be made. Moreover, the model emphasises the need to persistently evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of any solution according to goals and objectives of the group so they can arrive in a decision to select or not to select such alternative. A political model on the other hand encourage decision makers to act based on their individual needs and views of the problem. For this reason, there are always discussions and negotiations between members of the group each one trying to influence others by their personal beliefs. At first glance, the rational model seems more organised and logical approach to group decision making but it may not useful to most real life situation. For instance, in actual decision making, a group undergoes and confront various types of conditions. Typically, every member of the group in real life situation almost always has their own opinion or thinking about a particular problem. Moreover, they also tend to have different information on their hand depending how it is shared and distributed among them. In other words, inaccuracy of information, individual interest, and some other inconsistencies is possible and can negatively affect the quality of the decision. Similarly, the best solution may not be selected using a political model because negotiations may be influenced by the more powerful member. Alone, a model cannot work by itself and in Browns situation where the Board already exhibited an ineffective decision making practice, a single unfamiliar model may not work. In practice, it would be better to combine these models so each one can compensate each others weakness. For instance, the rational model requires completeness and sharing of information while the political model does not require all information to be available. The later therefore is useful in situations where information is withheld. In the same manner, the former can help in situations where repeated evaluation of the solution is required rather than adopting the influence of one or two influential members (Lu & Ruan 2007, p.43). 4. Recommendations In practice, discussions involving two or three individuals may not be a problem and decisions can be made in just a short time. However, in Browns, group decision making particularly those that involve members that has the same expertise and experience, discussions may not be easy and quality decisions may not be arrive in just a short period. In brainstorming, it encourages the group to come up with more ideas first and reserve their criticism later in the process. In this manner, more creative and radical ideas can come out in the open without being suppressed by discouraging criticisms. Moreover, members will be more confident, involve, and committed to come up with a brilliant solution. Similarly, using the nominal group technique can enhance participation by encouraging each member to come up with their own ideas. NGT is appears to be more organised since it is promoting decision making in stages and support idea prioritization and voting. NGT can therefore enhance group decision making by making sure those decisions are made in accordance with all the input rather than by influence by few members. Similarly, the Delphi technique can facilitate a more credible input since it would come from a large number of people with varying views. The only problem seen from this approach is the capability of the analyst to identify the right solution based on enormous number of inputs. However, take seriously and implemented properly, the Delphi technique will probably yield the best solution to the problem. Devil’s advocate and dialectic techniques may be more complex but the end result may be more realistic because it came from intense discussion. However, such approach may not always work particularly when some of the members are not good in argumentation and may not be able to explain or support their views effectively. Generally, if the problem is complex then it would be better to deal with it part by part. This is because dividing complicated problems along with summaries and diagrams can make group decision-making easier (Holmes 2008, p.222). Decision-making may be also enhanced by visual presentations such as PowerPoint programs, handouts, whiteboard or overhead transparency. These tools can help further improve the Browns Board decision making strategy. Moreover, as discussed in the previous sections, Mr., Green may choose to adopt one or a combination of the most suitable model to ensure quality decisions of the Board in the future. 5. Conclusion Individual or a group, people often decide but their decisions vary widely depending on the view of individual or members of the group. In businesses and other organisations, groups are being formed to make the right decision but sometimes these groups fail resulting to losses and unnecessary problems. The failure to decide properly is caused by a number of factors such conflict of interest among members, too many members resulting to too many changing variables to consider, group norms, and other traditional weaknesses. Brainstorming is a good way to improve the group’s decision making process because more ideas are being considered rather than favouring certain group norms. NGT can be very useful particularly when properly structured to meet goals and objectives of the group. NGT can identify, explore solutions, and promote consensus among the members of the decision making group. Similarly, the Delphi technique can be very useful particularly when opinions from large group of people are required. Devil’s advocate and dialectic approach may be feasible to some extent but it is not always applicable to some situation. 6. Recommendations In practice, discussions involving two or three individuals may not be a problem and decisions can be made in just a short time. However, in group decision making particularly those that involve members from different part or department of a company with varying opinion and perceptions, discussions may not be easy and quality decisions may not be arrive in just a short period. In brainstorming, it encourages the group to come up with more ideas first and reserve their criticism later in the process. In this manner, more creative and radical ideas can come out in the open without being suppressed by discouraging criticisms. Moreover, members will be more confident, involve, and committed to come up with a brilliant solution. Similarly, using the nominal group technique can enhance participation by encouraging each member to come up with their own ideas. NGT is appears to be more organised since it is promoting decision making in stages and support idea prioritization and voting. NGT can therefore enhance group decision making by making sure those decisions are made in accordance with all the input rather than by influence by few members. Similarly, the Delphi technique can facilitate a more credible input since it would come from a large number of people with varying views. The only problem seen from this approach is the capability of the analyst to identify the right solution based on enormous number of inputs. However, take seriously and implemented properly, the Delphi technique will probably yield the best solution to the problem. Devil’s advocate and dialectic techniques may be more complex but the end result may be more realistic because it came from intense discussion. However, such approach may not always work particularly when some of the members are not good in argumentation and may not be able to explain or support their views effectively. Generally, if the problem is complex then it would be better to deal with it part by part. This is because dividing complicated problems along with summaries and diagrams can make group decision-making easier (Holmes 2008, p.222). Decision-making may be also enhanced by visual presentations such as PowerPoint programs, handouts, whiteboard or overhead transparency. These tools can help further improve the group decision making strategies mentioned earlier. Moreover, as discussed in the previous sections, group decision maker may adopt one or a combination of the most suitable model to ensure quality decisions. 7. Reference List Diamond J. 2006, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail Or Succeed, Penguin, US http://books.google.com/books?id=QyzHKSCYSmsC&pg=PA420&dq=group+decision+making+failure&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=3#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20failure&f=false Donaldson T. 1982, Corporations and Morality, Prentice-Hall, US http://books.google.com/books?id=kjYKgOPspPkC&pg=PA115&dq=group+decision+making+problems&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=9#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20problems&f=false Dubrin A. 2008, Essentials of Management, Cengage Learning, US http://books.google.com/books?id=dNThzoekGQcC&pg=PA165&dq=group+decision+nominal+technique&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=3#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20nominal%20technique&f=false Greene J. & Burleson B. 2003, Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, Routledge, UK http://books.google.com/books?id=z3_0HDcVOuUC&pg=PA846&dq=group+decision+making+dialectic+inquiry&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=6#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20dialectic%20inquiry&f=false Griffin R. & Moorhead G. 2009, Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations, Cengage Learning, Canada http://books.google.com/books?id=RidV6vh08xMC&pg=PA244&dq=improving+group+decision+making+delphi&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=4#v=onepage&q=improving%20group%20decision%20making%20delphi&f=false Hart P., Stern E., & Sundelius B. 1997, Beyond groupthink: political group dynamics and foreign policy-making, University of Michigan Press, US http://books.google.com/books?id=aF83RCEhOl4C&pg=PA128&dq=group+decision+making+conflict+of+interest&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=9#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20conflict%20of%20interest&f=false Hill C. & Jones G. 2008, Essentials of Strategic Management, Cengage Learning, Canada http://books.google.com/books?id=Sy8vejqbcocC&pg=PA18&dq=improving+group+decision+making+devil%E2%80%99s+advocacy&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=10#v=onepage&q=improving%20group%20decision%20making%20devil%E2%80%99s%20advocacy&f=false Holmes L. 2008, CPH Exam Quick Reference Review, Jones & Bartlett Learning, US http://books.google.com/books?id=4ua71KJzXDcC&pg=PA222&dq=group+decision+making+problems&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=6#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20problems&f=false Hunt J. 2004, Organizational Behavior, Tsinghua University Press, Japan http://books.google.com/books?id=tAIdtEyNEzYC&pg=PA185&dq=group+decision+improve&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20improve&f=false Koksalan M. & Zionts S. 2001, Multiple criteria decision making in the new millennium: proceedings of the fifteenth International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Ankara, Turkey, July 10-14, 2000, Volume 2000, Springer, Germany http://books.google.com/books?id=CBFw8qtLTyEC&pg=PA294&dq=group+decision+nominal+technique&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20nominal%20technique&f=false Kroon J. 1995, General Management, Pearson , South Africa http://books.google.com/books?id=UGlqbHZDbU8C&pg=PA193&dq=group+decision+improvement&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20improvement&f=false Tropman J. 1996, Effective meetings: improving group decision making, SAGE, US http://books.google.com/books?id=ad9_wkzDPigC&printsec=frontcover&dq=group+decision+making&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=4#v=onepage&q&f=false Lu L. & Ruan D. 2007, Multi-objective group decision making: methods, software and applications with fuzzy set techniques, Imperial College Press, US http://books.google.com/books?id=HOP5QsTTEWIC&pg=PA6&dq=group+decision+making+failure&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20failure&f=false Lasher W. 2007, Practical Financial Management, Cengage Learning, US http://books.google.com/books?id=hT-mei3AgHcC&pg=PA16&dq=group+decision+making+conflict+of+interest&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=4#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20conflict%20of%20interest&f=false Lewis P., Goodman S., Fandt P., & Michlitsch J. 2006, Management: challenges for tomorrow's leaders, Cengage Learning, US http://books.google.com/books?id=rs2Obr55ThsC&pg=PA165&dq=group+decision+making+dialectic+inquiry&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=9#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20dialectic%20inquiry&f=false Linkov I. & Ramadan A. 2004, Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making, Springer, Netherlands http://books.google.com/books?id=_tXpUHV_mIkC&pg=PA215&dq=improving+group+decision+making+delphi&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=7#v=onepage&q&f=false Lunenburg F. & Ornstein A. 2007, Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices, Volume13, Cengage Learning, US http://books.google.com/books?id=ghDJXgwYPX8C&pg=PA169&dq=improving+group+decision+making+brainstorming&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=improving%20group%20decision%20making%20brainstorming&f=false Martin J. & Martin F. 2010, Organizational Behaviour and Management, Cengage Learning EMEA, Croatia http://books.google.com/books?id=keJu-dMltOEC&pg=PA288&dq=improving+group+decision+making+delphi&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=6#v=onepage&q=improving%20group%20decision%20making%20delphi&f=false Meisenheimer C. 1997, Improving quality: a guide to effective programs, Jones & Bartlett Learning, US http://books.google.com/books?id=h5UH71BUvVYC&pg=PA237&dq=improving+group+decision+making+brainstorming&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q=improving%20group%20decision%20making%20brainstorming&f=false Ullman D. 2006, Making robust decisions: decision management for technical, business, and service teams, Trafford Publishing, Canada http://books.google.com/books?id=xwqMV5UiEpoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=decision+making&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false Verplanken B. & Svenson O. 1997, Decision making: cognitive models and explanations., Routledge, UK http://books.google.com/books?id=x39x4seYwswC&pg=PA40&dq=Verplanken+and+Ola+Svenson+1997&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false Weinshall T. 1993, Societal culture and management, Walter de Gruyter, Germany http://books.google.com/books?id=hC-enxM3KjIC&pg=PA504&dq=group+decision+making+conflict+of+interest&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=10#v=onepage&q=group%20decision%20making%20conflict%20of%20interest&f=false Read More