Group Decision Making Challenges - Literature review Example

Group Decision Making Introduction Browns Insurance Services invested heavily in new technology two years ago at their call centre located in North East England. The technological advances were purposeful to help facilitate quality, call center service provision. The company structured a budget after a decision passed for technological advances by the company’s board. Even with the heavy budget that cost the company, there were still no fruits reaped from the technological advances. This is because the technological advances failed in the goals set since they were to support the activities of the entire call centre. The Company was with no option other than to later budget and spend more in rectifying the developed problem initiated by a poor decision from the board members. The CEO, Mr. Sebastian Green, explained the situation as unbelievable after he entrusted a group of board members hoping they would make a sound decision. This paper details the report as a request by the CEO of the company to make rectifications on the mistakes the board did and plan for a better future and optimal organization planning. The report includes the strategies of appropriate learning of the organization on decision-making. It also looks into how it implementations are possible in making principled decisions including limitations that are capable of bringing down a group decision-making process. It aims at making improvements to decision-making in an organization for the benefit of its operations. It is germane to the company and will be of immense applicability in the next-board meeting, where the board will be holding another mandate to make a delivery of another germane decision-making process and come up with better conclusions in issues that direct affect Browns Insurance Company. The paper will cover literature review with details of the topic on decision-making processes, indicative of benefits involved in, group decision making and applying the same to reasons why group approaches fail. It also demonstrates how Brown’s company can make improvements in group-decision making enabling the company to attain the goal of success. In conclusion, the paper presents recommendations required in improving group decisions applicable in the case of Brown’s company. Literature Review Decision-making generally refers to an outcome of human mental processes or else known as cognitive processes. The event of decision-making leads to the assortment of courses of action among many alternatives. Every decision-making process includes deriving a final choice after a well thought process (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). The overall goal of decision-making process is to come up with an opinion or an action literally from human choice. There is broad literature on the issue of human performance in the process of decision-making. Many perspectives look into the process detailing varying arguments. The cognitive perspective espouses that the process in decision-making should always regard continuity as well as involves integration in the human interaction with the immediate environment (Carl smith 1999, 203-210).\ The psychological perspective espouses that there is a necessity of examining individual decisions within a set of needs and preferences that an individual holds and the actual values he seeks (Moreland 1992, 124-155). The normative perspective makes descriptions of the decision-making process as an analysis of individual decision making concerned literally with the reality of rationality and choice that it leads to, finally (Hackman 2002, 68-87). James (2001, p. 31–41) explains Groupthink as a general type of thought evident from the group members trying to minimize differences, conflict, and reach a level of consensus without essentially testing, evaluating and analyzing ideas. It is one of the greatest challenges in any group decision making for a group. Individual creativity, independent thinking and uniqueness are lost in the vent of groupthink since individuals pursue pertinent and different visions. In the event of groupthink, members of the pertinent group totally avoid endorsing viewpoints outside their respective comfort zone of precise consensus thinking (James 2001, p. 31–41). Several motives for this exist for instance desire of avoiding being seen by others as foolish, or an individual desire of avoiding angering or embarrassing other group members. Groupthink therefore is disadvantageous because it causes groups to make irrational, hasty decisions, where particular members doubts are set aside, fearing the upset of the group’s balance. Davis (1973, 97-125) reflects on the functional perspective explaining that it has origins traced from group processes of decision-making. The focus of this perspective is on consequences emanating from participants’ behavior in a decision-making process. The behaviors influence the decision-making process a fantastic deal and affect future elements of the organization according to the decision arrived at by the board. Functional theory defines group decision making as the prospective approach and one with many advantages in decision-making (Gladstein 1984, 499-517). Carl smith (1999, 203-210) explained that the cognitive dissonance theory espouses better in group-decisions. It explains that there is a tendency for group members to seek consistency among their respective cognitions including beliefs and opinions. When the situation promotes inconsistency between behaviors and attitudes, something changes and therefore eliminates the dissonance. In the case where there is a discrepancy between behavior and attitudes, it is most likely that the individual attitude changes to accommodate the individual behavior. Same case applies for group situations (Carl smith 1999, 203-210). It is a challenge because some of the members within the group conform to what others say in decision-making to avoid conflicts, therefore transform their behavior to suit the occasion that involves acceptance. They end up making poor decisions of no help to the element of the application. In explaining the concept of group-decision, Hackman (2002, 68-87) argued in his contemporary theory that group decision making involves the use of logic. It is by far advantageous because it does not involve individual emotions. Logical decision-making is essential and necessary for all science-based professions. In this case, they apply specialist knowledge in a given area to come up with conclusive ideas and decisions about a particular scenario and result in informed decision-making (West 1996, 555-579). This would be the ideal approach in any controversial situation or times of crises with the organization. For example, Browns Insurance Services decision to invest would be rather a set of meetings involving all stakeholders to incorporate ideas that lead to a better understanding and decision-making (Moreland 1992, 124-155). These arguments explain the decision-making success as only a result of motivations and capabilities of the members of the group responsible for making decisions. The perspectives also stress on the principal of resource availability in decision making for the parties have convenient access to help them make a fine decision (Moreland 1992, 124-155). The theories contemplate a likelihood of a decision-making success or facilitating a problem solving appropriately, if only communication functions during the process assure five critical requirements. The requirements include showing a proper understanding of the matter at hand requiring a solution, determining the main characteristics an alternative must exhibit, identification of relevant alternatives, assessment of alternatives relating them to the criteria used and a selection of the best alternative satisfying the criteria. These represent the activities and the best process that enhances the effective of any decision made from the group (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). The relevance of the perspective to Browns Insurance Services shows in the way the company used most of its resources to host the board in a conference so that it would make appropriate decisions. However, the board failed to deliver and made wrong decisions of which a better approach in this case must be instituted. The company did not adhere to the five elements needed for the success of decision-making. The members of the board rushed to make an extremely critical decision that cost the company (Guzzo 1986, 270-295). It would have been better to engage first the members in a better understanding of the situation. It is assumable that the board members mainly the majority did not conceptualize the situation and were involved blindly without adequate information of what the company needed. One week was also limited for the board to make decisions. In the assumption, the board did not have enough time to look into possible alternatives that could indeed help the company plan and act to its advantage (Moreland 1992, 124-155). The main challenge of group decision is coming up with a conclusion on what action is necessary for a group to take. There are systems perfectly designed to provide an elucidation to the problem. However, these systems encounter problems and hardships therefore, denying the organization the benefits derived from a logical decision from the group (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Group Decision-Making Challenges Davis (1973, 97-125) explains that premature and eventual termination of evidence search is an enormous challenge that blocks any decision-making process and prevents any reality of a consensus. West (1996, 555-579) backs him by adding that there is a tendency of individuals to accept first alternatives rather than get into details and search for evidence before arriving at a decision. Davis (1973, 97-125) explains that this affects the organization and individuals fail to come to a consensus. Most of these sessions involve adopting an alternative that seem right. In addition, one that seems like it can work yet it is bogus and cannot lead to conclusive decision-making. In reality, the organizations never enjoy the benefits of decision making because there is an element of compromise to what could have been a better review and a conclusive deliberation (Davis 1973, 97-125). Therefore, to make the dream of an organization enjoying advantages of group decision making, rushed decisions have to be avoided. The concept of making decisions in any organization should focus on more research, and this will be advantageous in deriving better and wiser decisions that facilitate a better organization’s status (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Davis (1973, 97-125) applies the concept of selective perceptions in explaining how it has always let down a group decision process. West (1996, 555-579) backs him by adding that this denies the organization to make upright decisions and benefit from them through the advantages in such decision-making processes. In this case, the individuals actively screen-out information during the process and regard it as less important. In this case, such screened out information might be relevant without the knowledge of the group making the decision. Davis (1973, 97-125) sums up by saying that, result in the discussion to make decisions comes out not apparent as it would be in a formal decision making process. The selective perceptions brings in controversy in decision making, and therefore, locks the ideas that could be of value and the result is poor decisions. Screening out parts of the policies, issues and other elements responsible for decision making is fateful because it denies the decision makers a chance of evaluating possibilities of which it should be available (Moreland 1992, 124-155). West (1996, 555-579) introduces the concept of Inertia as also demeaning the advantages of a group decisions. The group at times composes of individuals who are unwilling to accept change patterns that used in the past to perform in the organization (Sniezek 1992, 124-155). West (1996, 555-579) explains that in this setting, the organization fails altogether to come up with a concrete decision that will bring advantages because of the introvert’s perception and conservative thinking. Mainly, unfavorable decisions come from the group resulting from inertia. This is because a part of individuals is enticed by new circumstances upcoming and not realizing the harm that the organization could experience in such circumstances. This mostly should be alienated through a reshuffle of the board responsible for decision-making. Such individuals who compromise decision-making should be alienated from the group (West 1996, 555-579). Their stand creates controversy in decision-making; therefore, they are as an enemy of the organization. Togetherness is the only sound approach of making smart decisions and driving the organization to enjoy the fruits of the decision made it is the only perspective to making informed decisions derived from contributions of individuals (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Gladstein (1984, 499-517) explains that biases are a serious challenge in decision-making. They at times creep into an individual’s decision-making, and they overlap in smooth process in decision-making. They prevent a better process and therefore, the advantages of decision-making cannot be realized in an organization. Potential cognitive interventions are the principal cause of poor decision-making and uninformed choice when making crucial decisions. They lead to inappropriate decisions that are never fruitful to the organization. Some of the challenges that bring down a group decision-making process include selective search for evidence. This refers to confirmation bias in psychology (Gladstein 1984, 499-517). In this case, individuals tend to develop a will to gather information and facts supporting certain conclusions but them generally disregard other facts that are the main support of better conclusions. This is mostly common with highly defensive individuals in an organization who tend to defend their own ambitions other than the common good of the organization. From this perspective, unless individuals come up together and cover their differences and references of bias, there is no way a decision can be valid and advantageous to the organization (West 1996, 555-579). It is apparent that every member in a group responsible for decision-making should do away with individual ambitions and make a better understanding on the reality in deriving conclusions for the organization’s operations (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). Ways of improving group decision-making To improve decision-making, a group requires the incorporation of different strategies depending on the situation or the challenge facing the entire process of making sound decisions. Hackman (2002, 68-87) explains that training is apposite to help fulfill developments in strategies used for group decision-making as well as to aid in equipping the members in relevant approaches of handling difficulties facing the groups in their pursuit of coming up with sound decisions through an improvement of their skills in decision-making processes. Moreland (1992, 124-155) argues that inducing reflectivity in groups is a fantastic strategy of improving decisions made. It handles individual bias and groupthink, therefore, fostering group performance. The strategy is unquestionably a success when a cooperative group applies in decision-making. The main challenge comes in when there are disparities within the group that hinder the application of the approach in decision-making (Moreland 1992, 124-155). Carl smith (1999, 203-210) asserts that the selection, adaptation and organization of actions and the development of alternatives including courses of action helping to change task requirements is the best strategy in improving group decisions. He terms this as Strategy development (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). It handles group think challenges in decision-making. Several Studies on this group performance strategy find it particularly relevant in making decisions. Carl smith (1999, 203-210) is quick to note that strategy development is however, not sufficient alone in facilitating the improvements of decisions made by groups. Mennecke (1997, 387-405) supports him by adding that it is somehow abstract and requires the support of other elements within the group. Weingarten (1992, 682-693) is the profounder of Shared mental models in making decisions appropriately. He argues that they are relevant to handling individual bias within a group regarding their ability to make decisions, and it is the easiest to implement. The strategy involves shared cognition between members of the group to improve the coordination that is relevant to coordinating high performance, in teams. It helps do away with individuality and the specifics of preferences in the individuals within a group. The method is perfect especially in small groups because the members can conceptualize and narrow down the ideas for a comprehensive understanding. However, it is extremely difficult to apply this strategy especially in the case of a large group with different members who hold their individual attributes (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Conclusion Browns Insurance Services case is immensely challenging and a devilish premeditated one. Therefore, to improving decision-making for such a situation as browns demands the involvement different and varying strategies. The company has enjoyed amusing times in connecting with group decisions, which smooth the progress of its processes so far. Browns insurance has already accomplished the Initial objectives of the company and only requires a few changes to deliver a sound decision. The fact that the selected board can agree and arrive at a decision means that the company has little to do in improving the decisions made because it does not have to start with restructuring the group. Not much is required in Brown’s company case of group improvement apart from improving the decision-making strategies when the board meets for the next meeting (Gladstein 1984, 499-517). The CEO incorporated eight men only in the group and did not compose a woman, which is a challenge. The next time the board meets, a reasonable ratio, ought to feature in the membership of the group to increase innovations lacking in this first phase of decision-making. The organization has done well by choosing a small number of board members and giving them the mandate to sit as decision makers. This is extraordinarily positive because the group encourages cohesiveness therefore allowing for easy decision-making. The small number allows greater reflectivity levels, better strategy development and efficient shared mental orders. However, what the company’s management needs to do is to do away with assumptions in the group’s next meeting and slot in the right strategies to facilitate the decision-making process. There are younger people within the board that could serve a better role when incorporated in the group decision making for the organization. It would also be advisable to bring in a woman in the group the next time when planning for a group to make decisions in the group (Mennecke 1997, 387-405).Taking the board away for a whole week does not necessarily guarantee authentic decision-making. The essence is not on time but on the group composition. The management should develop better and cohesive groups and equip them with the freedom to make decisions. There is also a need to involve them in a strong discussion on respective issues by first outlining the problem as a whole and helping them narrow down before leaving to them some of the contentious issues required to come up with famed decisions. References Brodbeck, F. et al 2000, improving group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model, Academy of Management Review, 234-246 Carl smith, J 1999, Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210 Davis, J 1973, Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes, Psychological Review, 80, 97–125 Gladstein, D 1984, Groups in context. A model of task group effectiveness, Administrative science quarterly, 29, 499–517 Guzzo, R et al. 1986, implicit theories and the evaluation of group process and performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 279–295 Hackman, J 2002, leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, P.68-87 James, K 2001, "Testing the groupthink model: Effects of promotional leadership and conformity predisposition". Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal (Scientific Journal Publishers Ltd.) 29 (1): 31–41 Mennecke, B 1997, Using group support systems to discover hidden profiles: An examination of the influence of group size and meeting structures on information sharing and decision quality, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 47, 387–405 Moreland, R 1992, Problem identification by groups, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 17–47 Sniezek, J 1992, Groups under uncertainty: an examination of confidence in-group decision-making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(1), 124–155 Weingarten, L 1992, Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693, West, M. A. (1996), Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration, In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp. 555–579) Read More