Leadership and Participation in Small Groups - Essay Example

GROUP DECISION Name: Tutor: Subject: Date: Group decision is the process in which a group of individuals work together to assess problems or situations, examine the available options and choose the most suitable option to solve the problem (Merigo et.al 2014). This paper focuses on examine group decision regarding its pitfalls, strengths and implementation process. The size of a group decision ranges from two-seven. The functioning of a group decision is affected by some of the factors that include: its structural organization, composition, size and the rationale of the group. A group decision can be formal or informal in nature, and its functions are governed by specific goals. The effectiveness of decision-making group is affected by external factors such as time pressure and contradictory goals. The process of group decision making has advantages and disadvantages. Many people refer group decision as a team, but there are differences between the two. A group decision has a definite leader while a team shares leadership responsibilities among themselves. The effectiveness of a group decision is measured indirectly but in a team through collective work product; their effectiveness is measured. In a team, there is a collective accountability while, in the group, accountability is individual’s responsibility. Heineken Company is the leading company in the production of beer in Europe. This company was established in 1864 by the Heineken family. The brewer has received several awards due to the quality beer that it produces. This company operates in 178 countries worldwide, and it has over eighty thousand employees who are committed diverse team players. However, the company is facing some risks such as liquidity risk, marketing risk, and credit risk. These risks are caused by the external and internal factors of the company. The management of the company has the responsibility of controlling and managing the risks. The management, therefore, needs to establish strategies on how to mitigate the risks. The strategies are best arrived at by careful assessment and decision are made. Group decision is, therefore, useful for the Heineken Company (Wyatt, S., and Mathur, S., 2014). There are some factors affecting group decision making. One of the factors is the nature of the decision to be made. If the decision to be made is for a specific agency, and then, the information individual decision is necessary, and there is no need of seeking information from others. Time is also another factor that influences group decision. Availability of time allows the group to delegate and share information thus making a decision. On the other hand, if the time is limited, managers may be forced to make their decisions. Another factor affecting group decision is confidentiality. In most cases, confidential information is not shared. This hinders group information sharing because important information might be left out due to confidentiality. The primacy of an organization affects group decision when there is a need for multi-organizational issues. This problem leads to poor coordination of members. A group decision is relevant when more than one agency is involved in a certain incident. For example, in the case of the fire incident, firefighters and rescuers are going to be involved more. Despite Fire Company being more responsible for addressing fire emergencies, other agencies are also required. Agencies such as police and ambulance services are important to handle the traffic cases and the injured respectively. Language is another factor that influence decision making. It affects the effectiveness of communication when some individuals in the group do not understand the language used (Palomares, et.al 2014). To overcome the barriers outlined above and enhance better information sharing, a group decision needs to set goals and expertise (Baker et.al 2006). The goals will direct the group members, and this will enable them to make a good decision. Training of organizational managers should include encouragement of information sharing with others and retain information among them. In the case of the primacy of one organization, the problem could be solved through the creation of data fusion center where the information could be obtained (Intorelli, et.al 2009). According to Petak, 1985, the cost is another factor affecting group decision making. To overcome this, there is a need for sharing information to enhance coordination (Anon, 2010, p.284). In the group decision, the individuals should trust each other so that there will be a high degree of information sharing (Wilson, et.al 2010). Heineken Company’s group decision making is usually carried out using online resources such as the Company’s website. The company adopts multinational corporation strategy (MNC) since it is a global company. For the decision issues, strategic planning and control business manager are responsible, and the decision groups from the operating regions come up with their alternatives and their manager sent them through the internet to the global executive director strategic planning who will execute the decisions. The managers promote corporation, coordination, and integration among the members of the group decision by assigning responsibilities, aligning efforts and sharing information. For example, in the early 2000s, the company faced stiff completion from Americans and the Chinese, and the company had to come up with a marketing strategy to address the challenge. Through its group decision, Heineken came up with the marketing slogan, “Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach”. This campaign is lucrative because the costs for the brands are fixed and are independent of volume sales (Jens G. & Christoph D. 2013). Group facilitation motivates and coordinates people to work together and improves the effectiveness of the group. Group decision is however not an easy process, and it is often far from being ideal (Kolbe, 2007). There are theories that explain how group decision can make relevant decisions. One of the theories is a functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness which was postulated by Guoran and Hirokawa (1996). The theory proposes that a group should satisfy some functions during the process of decision making. These functions are essential for making a quality decision and they include: identification and understanding of the problem, recognition of the needs to be addressed by the decision, development of realistic and eligible decision options and evaluation of their possible effects both negative and positive and finally selection of the best option based on the advantages and disadvantages. According to Kolbe (2007), functional theory also describes some social constraints that affect the efficiency of group decision making. One of them is egocentrism, and the group members are discouraged from this. The members are also advised not to focus on any performance-based criteria such as the problem of the decision but rather develop ways of achieving personal goals in the interaction. From this theory, planning and communicating contribute to quality decision. The main emphasis is that each member’s idea or knowledge should be integrated to make the final decision. Theories of regulation action analyse the complexity of group decision process. Individual action theory stresses the idea of a hierarchical and sequential organization of action. Group action theory emanated from this idea of individual action theory. The theory of group actions regards a group as “self-active system”, and it assumes that a group achieves its goals through a guided behaviour. The hierarchical structure of the decision-making process refers to the available superordinated purpose like making a decision. This purpose can further be broken down into several levels or plans such as the definition of the problem, production of decision alternatives, etc. Also, these levels can be decomposed into small actions. Sequential order refers to the group actions that can be fulfilled before others. For example, it is possible to come up with decision alternatives before evaluating their possible consequences. The empirical weakness of this sequence is that it can be ego-based, and the problem of decision preference can result. However, there are some sequential structures that demonstrate better performance such as those who carry out orientation and planning in a company. Subjective theories are used to explain group coordination and individual behaviour. Subjective theory consists of concepts that are interrelated and complex in its function and structure. They provide guiding and direction cognition to complex actions in higher levels of an organization. In general, subjective theories predict and explain behaviours thus enhancing understanding in a company. They work the same way as scientific theories and objective theories and they also provide a means of regulation (Erryman J.M, 2008). The process of making group decision follows some steps. The first step is the identification of the problem. This problem should be clearly defined and reference to the cause should be avoided. In this step, the problem defined should indicate primary objectives that set criteria for providing a solution to the problem. The next step is problem diagnosis. This involves the establishment of a model based on the objectives and behaviour. In the model, the behaviour or the objectives represent the dependent variables while the potential causes of the problem are represented as independent variables. The third step is to produce solutions where several possible solution alternatives for evaluation. After possible solutions have been generated, the next action is to evaluate them. The evaluation involves deep analysis of each of the alternative to identify the advantages and disadvantages and then they are compared with each other. The best and most suitable alternative is chosen for implementation (Kolbe, 2007). There are some procedures that improve group decision-making process. They include brainstorming, nominal group technique and dialectical inquiry. Brainstorming involves discussion of the problem and generation of possible solutions verbally. The members of the group hold a meeting where they discuss the details of the problem until each member has a better understanding of the problem. During the “brainstorming meeting”, the group facilitator records the different alternatives from the members. After the suggestions have been presented, the members begin to evaluate them. This method is useful for generating alternatives, but the main weakness is that some members might refuse to participate in an alternative generation because they fear to be judged by others. The dialectical inquiry is a process of decision making which involves debate. The group members divide themselves into supporting and opposing groups. They debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solutions generated to solve a certain problem defined by the members and need to be addressed. The method completely considers all the alternatives of a decision. Nominal group technique allows the members to present their alternative solutions in writing. In this method, each member is given a chance to come up with a solution, put it down on paper or technological gadgets like smartphones or computers and present it to other members. The secretary of the group records all the alternatives from all members. Once the alternatives are exhausted, the members then engage in a discussion where they weigh the alternatives and then record them according to their suitability and preference. Group-decision has both strengths and pitfalls. An effective group-decision takes advantage of the diverse expertise, abilities and ideologies of the group members. Utilizing the quality of group members assist companies to generate alternatives that can be used to make sound decisions (dainty et.al 2006). The other advantage of a group decision is that it brings more understanding of a cause action. It makes the members of the groups be satisfied because they contributed to the implemented decision through the generation of alternatives. There are also several disadvantages of a group decision. One of them is that decision-making process is delayed. The group members are slow in making a decision and, therefore, the method is not applicable to situations that require urgent decisions. For example, in a company, issues relating to raw materials need urgent decisions because the process of production depends on the materials. The other disadvantage of a group decision is that, sometimes it makes the individuals experience “mental deterioration” (commonly known as groupthink victims) such that, he cannot make proper judgment due to group pressure. This leads to suppression of ideas and therefore, the group alternatives will not be fully evaluated. Another pitfall of group decision occurs when influential members of the group promote conformation to a certain set of values and beliefs. This group normally encourages the conformation by threatening others, inserting emotional pressures to other members and dominance among many other things (Dainty, et.al 2006). Group polarization is a disadvantage to a group decision. Group polarization can be defined as the process through which a group decides to adopt extreme solutions. The problem is associated to risk-taking groups. A group decision needs to have strong leadership to overcome those pitfalls. The role of the leadership in a group decision is to form interpersonal relationships, promoting Corporation, resolving conflicts and support. The leaders must be of two kinds; social leader and task leader. The social leader is responsible for controlling the code of conduct of the members while task leader is concerned with the result of the group. All members should also be given a chance to contribute through ideas. In conclusion, group decision is important because it enables firms to identify jointly problems and explore alternatives to generate the best solution. There are some factors which affect group decision making, and they include language barrier, confidentiality, the size of the group, structural organization and composition (Anon,2010). The issues can be mitigated if an organization employs necessary tools towards each problem. The process of group decision follows a specific procedure, and it begins with the identification of the problem, problem diagnosis, alternatives generation and their evaluation and finally the best alternative is chosen and implemented. There are also strengths and shortcomings of a group decision. The group allows exploration of different abilities and knowledge from different group members. These different ideas are useful for making a strong decision. The disadvantage of groupthink is that group influencers tend to dominate in the group making other members fear to share their ideas because they might be ridiculed by the influencers. The process of group decision can be improved by use of some methods such as brainstorming, nominal group technique and dialectical inquiry (Dainty, et.al 2006). REFERENCES Anon, 2010. Emergency response and recovery- non statutory guidance accompanying the civil contingencies act 2004. Cabinet Office, Civil Contingencies Secretariat, London. Baker, D. P., Day, R., & Salas, E. 2006. Teamwork as an Essential Component of High-Reliability Organizations. Health Services Research, 41(4), 1576- 1598.. Dainty, A., Moore, D. and Murray, M. 2006. Communication in construction: Theory and practice. London, Taylor & Francis. Haslam, C., Alexander Haslam, S., Knight, C., Gleibs, I., Ysseldyk, R., & McCloskey, L. G. (2014). We can work it out: Group decision‐making builds social identity and enhances the cognitive performance of care residents. British Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 17-34. Intorelli, A., Braig, D. & Moquin, R., 2009. Real-time data fusion and visualization in support of emergency response operations. HST '09.IEEE Conference, 417-424. Jens G. & Christoph D. 2013. Challenges of global brewery industry. Retrieved from: http://elgarblog.com/2013/08/02/challenges-of-the-global-brewery-industry-by-jens-gammelgaard-and-christoph-dorrenbacher/ Kolbe, Michaela, 2007. Koordination von Entscheidungsprozessen in Gruppen. Die Bedeutung expliziter Koordinationsmechanismen. Saarbrücken: VDM Wilson, Gerald L., 2005. Groups in context. Leadership and participation in small groups. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Malczewski, J., & Rinner, C., 2015. GIS-MCDA for Group Decision Making. In Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science (pp. 223-247). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Merigó, J. M., Casanovas, M., & Yang, J. B., 2014. Group decision making with expertons and uncertain generalized probabilistic weighted aggregation operators. European Journal of Operational Research, 235(1), 215-224. Mishra, J., Allen, D. and Pearman, A., 2014, Information seeking, use, and decision making. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Natalie M.S., Jayrant Rajpopal Luis G. Vargas 2015. Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Hierarchy process. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-015-9445-7 Palomares, I., Martinez, L., & Herrera, F. 2014. A consensus model to detect and manage noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision making.Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 22(3), 516-530. Pedrycz, W., & Song, M., 2011. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in group decision making and its optimization with an allocation of information granularity. Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 19(3), 527-539. Wei, G.W., 2011. Grey relational analysis method for 2-tuple linguistic multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete weight information.Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), pp.4824-4828. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417410011206 Wilson, Gerald L., 2005. Groups in context. Leadership and participation in small groups. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Wilson, T. D., 2010. Information sharing: An exploration of the literature and some propositions. Information Research, 15. Wyatt, S. and Mathur, S., 2014. Asia Pacific Breweries: A Big Gulp for Heineken?. Read More