Group Decision-Making Processes - Essay Example

Group Decision Making Processes Managers within organisations are required to make decisions when problems arise (Mintzberg 1973). Organisational decisions can be said to be like a garbage can (Watson, 2006, p.216) where “a complex mixture of items is thrown together in the big vessel of the decision-making event”. Decision making is presumed to be a logical, linear process, whether the decision is an organisational one or a personal one: Figure 1: Rational decision making process (Adapted from Miller et al (1996) in Salaman (2002) page 76) Individuals are not, however, rational and decision making processes are rarely linear, even if there is only one person involved in making the decision. Knights and Willmott (2007, p.325), using a model identified by Williams et at (1985) present a contrast between the “ideal” rational decision making process, and those factors that introduce irrationality: Ideal Rational Decision Making Model Potential Contributors to Irrationality Problem identification Conflicting goals Problem definition Changing goals Data collection Limited information Seeking alternatives Misinformation Analysis Errors in logic Authorisation Personal ambition Deliberation Jealousies Compromising Personality domination Evaluation Power struggles Sub-decision Rationalisation Decision/action Time pressure Table 1: Potential contributors to irrational decisions (Source: Williams et al in Knights and Willmott, 2007, p.325) There is also the impact of the amount of information available, and who has it. March and Simon (1958 in Knights and Willmott 2007) identified “bounded rationality” as an issue for decision making. The human mind can only cope with so much information at any one time, otherwise information overload results. What the mind takes notice of, will be determined by the individual, and much of the complexity involved in the decision will be lost. Information asymmetries also affect group decision making processes. Brodbeck et al (2007) note that certain information asymmetries are beneficial for group decision making, while others are not. Information vigilance instructions (withholding decisions until all available information has been discussed) and having sufficient time for the discussion (to allow for sharing of all available information) contribute to effective group decision making (ibid, p.473) while critical norms (which reduce negotiation possibilities) and dual-task structuring (dividing a task in two and requiring all information to be obtained before decisions can be reached) hinder it (ibid, pp.473-474). An individual making a decision only has to consider their own requirements when selecting a solution. Within a group or team, however, there are several viewpoints to consider, and the complexity increases as the size of the group or team does. In a group situation, decision making is affected by what people bring to meetings to discuss the issues. If a similar situation is known to someone, they might bring their knowledge of how that problem was solved (Watson, 2006). Who attends such meetings and who is absent also affects the decision outcome (ibid) as those with relevant knowledge might not be present; if they were present, the final decision reached is likely to be different. The time available to make the decision is also a factor; Parkinson’s Law (Mullins, 2007, p.808) details “the concept of the ‘Rising Pyramid’ and the idea that ‘work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion’”. The longer a group has available to make a decision, the longer the decision will take, with decisions frequently being taken at the last minute, despite the amount of time that was available. Bratton et al (2007, p.309) present a model of group cohesiveness and task performance: Figure 2: A model of group cohesiveness and task performance (Source: Bratton et al, 2007, p.309) The degree of group cohesiveness determines decision making effectiveness. Bratton et al (2007, p.308) report that “their decision making ability can be significantly superior to the total of all individual capabilities”, a quality known as synergy. They also highlight that the characteristics of individual members affect group processes, as do “dominant gender, race and power patterns” (ibid, p.309). Group composition and cohesiveness affect decision making. Although a cohesive group makes effective decisions, a group that is too cohesive can cause groupthink (Janis, 1972) to occur. Groupthink is when everyone in the group does not consider all the issues, or considers them superficially and poorly, causing poor decisions to be made that ignore apparently obvious alternatives and problems with the underlying case. Groupthink is characterised by eight attributes: an illusion of invulnerability; a belief in the inherent morality of the group, collective rationalisation of issues; those outside the group portrayed as stereotypes; self-censorship; an illusion of unanimity; direct pressure placed on those who disagree; and individuals who make sure that others in the group go with the consensus and do not rock the boat. Janis based his conclusions on a consideration of the Bay of Pigs episode, and more recent disasters, such as the Challenger disaster (Knights and Willmott, 2007, p.122) have also been attributed to groupthink. Group decision making will also be affected by the stage at which the group is in its development. Tuckman and Jensen (1977, in Martin and Fellenz 2010) identified five stages through which groups were expected to pass on the way to becoming effective. At the forming stage, decision making is likely to be tentative as the individuals within the group do not know each other very well and are looking to get on with others. At the storming stage, decision making will involve much debate and conflict as individuals begin to get to know each other and attempt to assert themselves on and within the group. At the norming stage, things have settled and the group begins to form its normal ways of behaving. Decision making is likely to be more fluid and reasoned, although not without areas of debate. At the performing stage, decisions are made easily, based on full co-operation between group members as the group now behaves effectively. Decision making is not really applicable to the adjourning phase, although individuals can choose to reflect on how things went and learn from the experience, to hopefully improve things the next time round. Although Tuckman and Jensen present the process as a linear sequence, there is much iteration between the stages and in some cases, groups may never leave the storming phase. Although conflict is to be avoided where it causes ill-feeling, robust constructive debate should take place at both the norming and performing stages to avoid the onset of groupthink. Finally, the different ethical positions represented within the group can affect the decisions made. Flynn and Wiltermuth (2010 p.1074) describe overestimation of consensus within groups on ethical matters that is not supported by actual group agreement, indicating that “individuals with higher betweenness centrality overestimated the level of agreement between their ethical judgments and their colleagues”. This affects the negotiation positions within the group where someone acts as a chairman or leader to try and reach an agreement. The more this person is situated between different viewpoints, the less likely they are to explore complex ethical issues, relying instead on superficial views, and the more likely they are to assume a high degree of agreement between group members. In several ways, this supports Janis’ (1972) idea of groupthink, with belief in the inherent morality of the group, an illusion of unanimity and self-appointed mindguards. There are many factors that have an impact on group decision making, and this is just a selection of possibilities. Group decision making is difficult and this should not be underestimated. However, the rewards of good group decision making can be extensive. Word count: 1,240 words excluding diagrams References Bratton, J., Callinan, M., Forshaw, C. and Sawchuk, P. (2007) Work and Organisational Behaviour: Understanding the Workplace Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R. and Schulz-Hardy, A. M. S. (2007) ‘Group Decision Making under Conditions of Distributed Knowledge: the Information Asymmetries Model’ Academy of Management Review Vol. 32 No. 2 pp.459-479 Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (2007) Introducing Organisational Behaviour and Management Thomson Learning, London Janis, I. L. (1972) “Chapter Two – A Perfect Failure: The Bay of Pigs” in Salaman, G. (ed.) Decision Making for Business: A Reader, Sage/The Open University, London Martin, J. and Fellenz, M. (2010) Organisational Behaviour and Management (4th edn.) Cengage Learning, Andover Miller, S. J., Hickson, D. J. and Wilson, D. C. (1996) “Chapter Four – Decision-making for Organisations” in Salaman, G. (ed.) Decision Making for Business: A Reader, Sage/The Open University, London Mintzberg, H. (1973) ‘A New Look at the Chief Executive’s Job’ Organisational Dynamics Vol. 1 No. 3, pp.20-30 Mullins, L. J. (2007) Management and Organisational Behaviour (8th edn.) FT Prentice Hall, Harlow Watson, T. J. (2006) Organising and Managing Work (2nd edn.) FT Prentice Hall, Harlow Read More