Comm Arts 575 Exam 2

Rule following

doing what’s appropriate

socialization into norms/rules- especially with white collar jobs- learn behavior appropriate to profession

simplifies implementation

• can lead to using less-educated employees

often with programmed decisions

programmed decisions

rule-based, company procedures, prototypes

takes decisions away from subordinates

employees don’t have to learn a lot

benefits organizations, not so much employees

ex. McDonalds

non-programmed decisions

mental simulation, non-routine

need more expertise, training

ex. 5 star chef hired by restaurant

problems with rule-following

may be too rigid— may miss opportunities of things outside the rules

learning is often superstitious

• may keep using rule even though it’s not really effective

history is obscure and subject to memory bias

• collective conservatism

Collective conservatism

just doing whatever’s been done in the past, even if you don’t know why it started being done in the past

analytics

looking at what criteria of some object/person predicts a certain behavior

rational decision making

subjective linear model (subjective expected utility)

objective linear model

multi-attribute analysis

steps of subjective linear model

1. list factors to use

2. assign weights to these factors— most important step (ex. what % importance)

3. rank performance on factors (make sure to standardize scales)

where to get probabilites for subjective linear model

use intuition to develop decision weights

• but problems— may be biased toward certain criteria, etc. 

bootstrapping: regression

• need options you’re trying to decide between, experts’ ratings of current or past candidates- ratings of whole candidate

• break down criteria of candidates rated by experts to determine what the experts were using to make decisions

• then determine if there’s a linear relationship between experts’ ratings and certain criterion, and weight criteria with more of a linear relationship higher

• uses experts’ intuitive judgements

objective linear model

if one can receive repeated feedback about performance of decisions, they can then forecast/predict outcome using probability (assuming future won’t change a lot)

use of big data and large databases

used a lot in retail- types of purchases often made together

often used for admissions decisions

same as subjective except using past data

ex. what AI uses for criteria for job applications- succeed more if male qualities cause past men got job

• bad, potential for bias

have done by having employees play games

• but biased if idea of “high performers” in job is biased

should use this over subjective if you have it— data is better than expert intuition

multi-attribute analysis/value analysis

look at what values are important to you, take every option you’re considering and rate them on each of your values, score each option and find best fit

detailed analysis of your weights and values

can hire a consultant

why multi-attribute analysis isn’t used more

methods are not well-known or understood

clinicians feel like they must provide a narrative account of their decisions to patients, so sounds cold if done by algorithm

trust- people worried to trust a computer

expertise on computers needed

group decision-making

3+ people making a decision or participating in decision process, have shared common goal

why to use a group to make an organizational decision

find out where everyone stands on issue and how strongly they feel about it

implement diversity— diverse viewpoints, shared expertise

represent all interests

greater acceptance of decision bc inclusion, greater perception of procedural justice (that the decisions are fair)

policy to use a group- juries, boards

lets people gain experience in group from older members

socialization of members through observation

fun- social function

raises morale if people have team spirit

better decision maybe (depends on characteristics of group and how group is facilitated)

• generally do better than average person, but not better than the best person

cross-functional team

team where each member has specific area of expertise and have to work together

conditions under which groups work and are intelligent- gives more random error than systematic error

decentralization: group members are each specialized, get information from different sources- not top-down

• lets you get different perspectives, increase diversity

independence- group members say their thoughts regardless of what others think

diversity of opinions

• increased breadth of perspectives, increased probability someone will have right answer

systematic error

problem with groups

everyone wrong/biased in same direction

because of centralization of lack independence

polarize

why don’t groups perform?

process loss: having to coordinate with people requires energy, coordination, planning- sucks energy

conformity- no independence

schisms- diversity → affective conflict- instead need task oriented, cognitive conflict

• people get defensive

specific people dominate

information processing problems- bad at integrating information only one person knows

information filtering problems- trouble filtering bad news up chain of command

lack of independence

imitation, herding, information cascades, conformity

independence

you’re not influenced much by others, have unique info, have own opinions

• keeps errors uncorrelated, random

external conformity/normative influence

being influenced by social pressure (not by information)

stifle your opinion because you think people will disagree

Ex. Asch line study

when is there less external conformity/normative influence?

decision is important

there are other dissenters

social proof/informational influence

think group has good information so go along with norms of group because you think group is correct

norms continue through generations

collective conservatism is specific type of it

ex. Sherif how far point of light moved study

herding

type of lack of independence from safety in numbers- if you do what everyone else is doing and fail, you’re not likely to be blamed much, but if you do something on your own you’re more likely to get judged/punished more harshly

• so even in best interest sometimes when you don’t trust herd’s judgement

group polarization

tendency for group decisions to be more extreme on some favored dimension than individual decisions 

group decisions exaggerate pre-discussion tendency among individuals

in positive or negative direction

prevented by balance of opinions

why group polarization happens

majority rules and exclusion of deviates

persuasive arguments— majority of people bring new arguments for certain position, you hear these arguments and they may persuade you to become more extreme in that position

• to work, group has to be leaning in certain direction

social comparison- compare to people with even stronger opinions

increases in confidence

other processes affecting group polarization

discounting conflicting evidence instead of learning from it- majority not likely to change view after hearing evidence for new opinion

rationalization- explain why piece of information from other side isn’t as valuable

directive leader

conformity

what increases group polarization

isolation- how much group is isolated

• Ex. Jonestown massacre

stroup ingroup identity

• and calling attention to it

easy exit/ease of expulsion

• less dissent among remaining people

• so should instead keep dissenters to reduce polarization

dependence on group

rhetorical advantage- arguments are supported by societal norms

groupthink

group comes to consensus too quickly without fully exploring alternatives and objectives

lack of independent, critical thinking in group with high amiability

emphasis on consensus and standing together without open discussion

different from polarization because in polarization people still openly express what they think, just all agree anyway

• only groupthink requires conformity

conditions leading to groupthink

high stress- outside threat or deadline

cohesiveness- if members like each other, may feel uncomfortable bringing up dissent

homogeneity- people are all the same- same perspectives, less likely to notice dissent

lack of decision-making procedure

• don’t have process leader (helps group follow strong structure)

insulation/isolation of group- decreases exposure to dissenting opinions

directive leadership (directive leader states opinion up front and guides group by telling them what they think)

• especially if strong status difference

two types of information you have in decision making

private information (information only you know)

social proof (information from others)

have to decide how much to use each

information cascades

When individual preferences are publicly and sequentially asked for, first and second people can start a cascade

people stop relying on private knowledge and use social proof as basis of decision, but don’t realize everyone is doing same thing

makes individual sense, but not group sense

opposing and needed information remains hidden, blind leading blind

tech decisions are often this

can also be reputational cascades 

in sequential voting (ex. straw polls)/decision making

often started by fashion leaders

snowball effect

pluralistic ignorance

stopped by dissenters

applies to organizational group Culture of Yes

3 types of polls

straw polls- sequential, subject to cascades

• ex. study where table split by opinion, went down table saying opinion, 2nd half of table said 1st half’s opinion

show of hands- could have some sequential effects

secret ballot- best- avoid cascade by using

fashion leaders

people who tend to start information cascades because they’re more visible to others

snowball effect

social proof becomes so large that it snowballs, large amount of people join- this is tipping point of cascades

2 kinds of dissenters

disclosers: say their private information, tend to talk about their reasons for doing stuff

contrarians: just like to go against social trends

how to reduce information cascades

overconfidence- rejection of social proof

importance of topic- if increased, less reliance of social proof

discussion

eliminate sequential decision making

reward for correct group answer, not individual

reward dissent

free speech

use subgroups to reduce likelihood of bad cascades

keep people informed

discourage leaders with coercive authority

secret ballot

Culture of Yes

people stay silent when they disagree, then later they act different

false consensus

silence isn’t assent, silence is trouble

starts cycle of inaction → deliberation → eventually disruption of implementation

devil’s advocate

can get people to give independent assessment of decision, reduce cascades

encourages debate and new lines of inquiry

dissenters have ability to affect process but not dictate outcome

unbiased perspectives- devil’s advocate criticizes equally, opposes everyone

share information

generate alternative perspectives

focus on underlying assumptions

Culture of No

downside to disagreement

block proposals that conflict with own interests

use veto power

leverage own power and status

hoard information, people are suspicious of each other

tearing other people down

focus on downside of others’ proposals

different from devil’s advocate because that just tries to affect decision-making process

personally/affectively motivated dissent

aim of brainstorming

cognitive stimulation: idea that group is larger than sum of its individuals- group makes individual consider new ideas

• can work if they try to overcome brainstorming barriers

central rules of brainstorming

you’re initially supposed to withhold judgement, allow any idea

uncontrolled- people speak out when they have an idea

wild ideas are encouraged

no one owns any idea

separate generation of ideas from evaluation of ideas

quantity is important

someone writes down ideas

why brainstorming isn’t effective

blocking

evaluation apprehension, norm of how much you should or shouldn’t contribute- social comparison- everyone talks about same amount, lowers performance

social loafers set low standard

general inhibitory factors (free riding, social interaction anxiety, task/group novelty) → low initial performance → interactive processes (blocking, social comparison) → outcomes (low performance, low persistence, illusions, low creativity)

how to overcome barriers in brainstorming

have facilitation

• make sure people are participating a lot initially, tone down dominant members, encourage quiet members to contribute, make sure people follow rules of brainstorming

breaks in groups- helps with blocking, helps people think about topic while not in group

reduce useless chatter

have prior individual solutions and bring to group

mix individual and group sessions

set high standards- to avoid low social comparison

use ringer to set high standard

remind them of rules to reduce apprehension and remind them to pay attention to others’ ideas

try to use people who are more comfortable talking in groups

brainwriting: write ideas then grab someone else’s when dry- done in online group

computer software

blocking

have to wait to talk to not cut people off

busy rehearsing in head to not lose idea, but then you’re not listening to other people (can’t build off their ideas), and not thinking of other ideas

IDEO’s process to maximize creativity and innovation in groups

individual group members gather information individually as ethnographers before group discussion- decentralization

members have variety of backgrounds- diversity

wide open session- many ideas, wild ideas, deferred judgement- atmosphere for brainstorming

filter down those ideas by individual voting through post-its- allows independence, prevents conformity

leaders intervene to move process along- process leader

use subgroups

go to field with prototypes

7 rules to IDEO’s brainstorming

sharpen the focus- start with a well-defined goal- launching pad to focus creative energy

playful rules- written around room, critical towards structuring dialogue

write down ideas on something everyone can see- helps to build on others’ ideas

don’t have everyone taking notes- free them up

facilitators- help decide when to build on idea and when groups need to switch gears, ensures rules are being followed

warm up individually or in small subgroups to ensure they’re thinking

vote individually- keep independence

lessons from IDEO about creativity

challenge experts and expertise, experts can be wrong- rather work for a group product

unlearn old assumptions, test conventional wisdom

• does it have to be the way it is? combat collective conservatism

it’s acceptable to fail

• pilot tests

• seen with pixar shorts

when is failure not okay?

when good decision making process wasn’t followed

when people do not react and adapt when plan starts to go bad- they just escalate instead

when people fail to take responsibility

when people make the same mistake twice

common information effect

information held by more members before team discussion has more influence on team judgements than information held by fewer members, independent of the validity of the information

groups spend too little time discussing unshared information

discussion bias

leads some groups to miss optimal solutions, harm group decision quality

if 1 person has A, D, 2nd has C, F, 3rd has B, E— most potential to innovate because all have new unshared information to give, so this effect doesn’t happen

if whole group has same information, no creativity/innovation

if group has mostly shared information but everyone has some unshared information, there’s potential for innovation but unshared information will be ignored

why common information effect happens

probability- if more people have certain information, it’s more likely to be mentioned

mutual enhancement- positive reinforcement

• discussing shared information feels good

• members are judged as more task competent and credible after discussing shared instead of unshared information

• shared information is judged as more important, accurate, and decision-relevant than unshared information

bias for preference-consistent information

• shows confirmation bias

what does not work to try to fix common information effect

separate review and decision

bigger teams— increases discussion of shared information

more information (but same distribution)

accountability for decision

pre-discussion polling

• gears group toward talking about preferences instead of shared information

what does help overcome common information effect

team leader is information manager- in charge of integrating and pulling in information

• increased focus on unique information

suspend initial judgement- don’t have members make decision before discussion

frame as information-sharing problem, rather than a judgement to be made 

minimize status differences

• make members aware of each others’ expertise

components of process leader

listening

inquiring- seeking information

playing back information others mentioned

psychological safety- people comfortable asking questions, sharing information

procedural fairness

benefits of diversity

finding a suitable alternative increases with diversity of alternatives presented

deeper processing of information and more complex thinking

• challenges people with different viewpoints, so they process information more deeply

• especially helps with cognitively complex tasks

• people have broader range of knowledge

markets tend to be diverse but small groups often aren’t

especially with innovation and creativity tasks, diversity leads to more task conflict and deeper understanding of problem and more novel solutions

different sets of contacts and information

diversity in functional differences (skills, information, expertise) leads to vigorous debate and more analysis

why diversity is important to study

workplace is increasingly diverse

globalization, more diverse workforce, more use of teams, increased specialization

helps to have cross-functional team

cross-functional team

people with specialized knowledge put together with people with different specialized knowledge to work on problem

what’s the lay belief about diversity?

diverse teams will lead to a direct increase in number of perspectives and improve performance, leading to greater creativity and performance

instead it’s really more complicated

• interacting with people from different backgrounds can be source of discomfort, mistrust, conflict, so benefits of diversity are not fully realized

• can have negative results too 

• depends on how well you structure organization to take advantage of diversity

diversity

any attribute people will use to tell themselves another person is different

can also be applied to having individuals seek out diverse personal experiences

• ex. living abroad or being bicultural associated with greater creativity

2 categories of group level diversity

surface level/demographic diversity: what you see

• more disruptive initially, leads to more affective conflict- but negative effects go away after people have interacted for some time

deep level diversity: having different information, opinions, attitudes

• has longer-term impacts and more positive effects on groups, leads to more task conflict (which is better related to high performance)

problems diversity creates

social divisions

negative effects on social integration

reduced cohesion (people don’t like each other as much) and communication

lower satisfaction

turnover- people more likely to quit

lower performance

conflict- esp. affective conflict

why do problems from diversity happen?

similarity-attraction theory: similarity facilitates interpersonal attraction and liking, people strain towards symmetry, we rate people more similar to us as more intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-adjusted

• tend to select members like ourselves, and dissimilar members get weeded out, organizations evolve to state of homogeneity

• ex. patterns of friendship predictable by similarity

self-categorization and social identity— people define self-concepts in terms of memberships in social groups, then derive part of their identity from group membership and social categories

• bolster and maintain self-esteem by membership in successful groups

• so ingroup bias, us vs. them, and tendency for outgroup homogeneity and more stereotypes of outgroup

• ingroup favoritism and preference

2014 study of diversity

in competitive trading markets, diversity promoted careful unbiased judgements

and market level accuracy in pricing assets increased in ethnically diverse markets, decreased in homogenous markets

information exchange perspective

with diversity, people arrive with greater variety of perspectives, leads to consideration of greater amount of information by both minority and majority group members

• and diversity encourages minority opinion

• and overall leads to deeper processing of information

• exemplifies benefits of diversity

why research is mixed for diverse groups

diverse groups need to actively utilize diversity for it to have positive effects

ability and willingness to engage in constructive, task-focused conflict to integrate divergent perspectives is needed

• have to work at it, it doesn’t happen passively

2 types of tasks

exploitation tasks: include production, efficiency, convergent thinking, and execution of plans and decisions

• variance minimizing- have decided what to do, have to focus on doing it

exploration tasks: experimenting, innovating, divergent thinking and problem-solving

• variance maximizing

what should organizations do to capitalize on diversity?

homogenous teams for exploitation tasks

diverse teams for exploration tasks

provide bridge across diversity- connect members in some way meaningful to the team, connect by values

• connects similarities, reduces affective conflict

• AKA superordinate identity: being different, yet feeling similar in values

• use organizational culture as bridge

• leader must take steps to highly shared goal

for racial/ethnic diversity, better to take multicultural perspective than colorblind approach

• talk about differences instead of ignoring them

• multicultural perspective- more accurate perceptions of others, less racial bias, smoother interracial interactions

perspective taking is important- trying to see world through eyes of someone different from you

• moderates effects of diversity on creativity, so diverse groups are more creative

• reduces stereotyping, racial bias, increases recognition of discrimination, promotes interracial interactions

change frame- view diversity as opportunity for people to contribute and learn from one another

leadership must encourage organizational culture that values these perspectives and variety of opinions and recognizes challenges of diverse perspectives

rule of halves

getting information from team members halfway between meetings- for touching base with members before meeting

prepare members for new business, so they can react properly during meeting

• never introduce new business during meeting as discussion item

see where people stand on issues

lets people rehearse positions on issues- affectual rehearsal

see if information from people is more one-on-one or should be discussed during meeting, break issues people give you into parts, see if certain topics are more discussion or decision topics

what to include in meetings/three character principle

three categories to slot items into:

• announcements

• decisions

• discussions: things coming up you don’t have to decide upon yet, want to discuss it so it’s on people’s radar

rule of 1/6

how to write agenda

start with easy items to warm up- first 1/6 of meeting

• approval of minutes, announcements

4/6 present items for decision

• things to vote on right now in meeting

• goal is want most things to be voted on, don’t want to carry over business to next meeting

• start with things easy to vote on- not too controversial, low relevance, quick

• put hard items near middle, not end of meeting- just before halfway point, 40-45% through

estimate time- put expected minutes next to item

agenda bell

1. minutes

2. announcements

3. items for decision- easy, then moderate, then hardest

4. last 1/6 to 1/3 is decompression and future business as people start to mentally disengage- introduce especially controversial items to be decided on in next meeting, blue sky items

when you write agenda, provide detail and what kind of item it is

end with easiest item- helps group cohesion, morale

two-meeting rule

two-meeting rule

if you have a controversial item that should be voted on, it should be discussed at two meetings- first meeting as discussion, second as decision- lets people mull it over and not have to think it through in one meeting

rule of 3/4

¾ of way to next meeting, send out materials needed for meeting

• agenda, reports, etc. 

how to send out good reports

don’t send whole report, because big reports are often unread

instead use executive summary

• use options memo technique: state problem, available options, and which option was selected and why

  • provides information to group about what was considered

  • separates options (facts) from recommendations

  • lets group compare recommendations to options and see what’s been left out

tips during meeting

don’t marry people to their positions- they’ll be wary of committing to anything in the future

rule of temporal integrity: start on time, end on time, keep rough order to agenda items

agenda integrity- people prepare for items on agenda, so only deal with items on agenda

larger groups need more structure during meeting

two-meeting rule

tips for minutes

head of meeting should be recorder of minutes

people will check minutes to see how they're personally represented, so don’t make anyone look negative

should have section to reflect each part of agenda

provide summary of discussion- main points

always put in decisions that were made, make sure decision is distinct

• name names, who needs to do what

• summarize what follow-up actions are needed

avoid identifying people with a position- don’t name names of who supported what

use names as little as possible except when people have to do something

minutes taker should summarize what they’ll write- for the record

don’t get too detailed

want minutes to be passed quickly

minutes taker should vocalize any decision they’re going to record- reflective summary everyone can agree on