Chapter 7 - Team Decision Making

decision making

integrated sequence of activities including gathering, interpreting and exchanging information, creating and identifying alternative courses of action; choosing among alternatives by integrating different perspectives and opinions and implementing a choice and monitoring its consequences.

framing bias

almost any decision can be reframed as a gain or loss relative to something. Questions are worded differently to sway opinions

overconfidence bias

tendency for people to place unwarranted confidence in their judgements. Causes focus to be on strengths in our team and weaknesses in others

confirmation bias

tendency for people to consider evidence that supports their position, hypothesis, or desires and disregard or discount (equally valid) evidence that refutes their beliefs. Selectivley expose themselves to confirmatory information

• tunnel vision → can augment this bias

• regulatory focus → affects the incidence of the confirmation bias in groups. Prevention focus → such as security, leads to a greater bias when pursuing an individual goal over promotion focus

decision fatigue

get fatigued as they make more difficult decisions

demonstrable task

has an obvious correct answer

group-to-individual transfer

group members become more accurate during the group interaction

majority rule

most common decision rule, use because of ease and familiarity

• doesn’t promote creative trade offs

• form coalitions or subgroups

group decision rules

method to combine individual decisions to yield a group decision

motivated information processing in groups model

people refuse to make decisions and reject all options and delay choice. Epistemic motivation and social motivation affect the likelihood that groups will refuse to make decisions. When low they make decisions quickly otherwise if high they refuse.

• when pro-self → longer discussions and engage in more focusing behavior

symptoms of group think

• overestimation of the group → regard themselves as invulnerable and morally correct. Decision makers to believe they are exempt from standards

• closed mindedness → members of the group engage in collective rationalization with stereotyping out group members

• pressures toward uniformity → strong intolerance in groupthink situation for diversity of opinion. Dissenters are subject to enormous social pressure, often leads group members to suppress their reservations.

group think shortcomings

incomplete survey of alternatives and objects, failure to reexamine alternatives, failure to examine preferred choices, selection bias, poor information search, and failure to create contingency plans

precipitous conditions

likely to lead to group think

preventative conditions

likely to engender effective decision making

groupthink prevention

stimulation of constructive, intellectual conflict, and reduction of concerns about how the group is viewed by others - conformity pressure

team size

larger teams = more group think. Greater than 10 may feel responsible for team outcomes

face-saving mechanism

afraid of being blamed for poor decisions. More likely to succumb if they have an excuse for poop performance

risk technique

structured discussion situation designed to reduce group members fears about making decisions. Talk about dangers and risks first with devils advocate or anonymous feedback

different perspectives

assume perspective of other constituencies with a stake in the decision

devils advocate

disagree with the dominate proposal and ask questions

• genuine dissent over contrived dissent or no dissent at all in terms of simulating original ideas, considering opposing positions nad changing attitudes

structured discussion

delay solution selection and increase the problem-solving phase. Prevents premature closer on a solution

protect alternative viewpoints

can generate high quality decision alternatives, they fail to adopt them. Record all presented alternatives

second solution

develop an alternative to 1st choice

time pressure

leads to risky decision making. Stressor, impares effectiveness

escalation of commitment

teams persist with a losing course of action, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary

• escalation dilemma → people involved would make a different decision if they weren’t involved up until that point

• resources are allocated to try to “turn the decision around”

project determinants

object features of the situation. Ask whether the perceived setback is permanent or temporary, if temporary they’ll more likely to escalate commitment

psychological determinants

cognitive and motivational factors that propel people to continue that course of action

• when negative outcome may occur ask…

  • what are my personal rewards? → self-perpetuating reinforcement trap (rewards for continuing aren’t aligned with organization objectives)

  • Is my ego and my team’s reputation on the line? Ego protection over success

social determinants

engage in actions and behaviors they think will please most of the people most of the times even at the expense of the right thing, which may not be popular. Heightened among groups of friends

structural determinants

when removed from critical evaluation a project can become institutionalized. This makes it impossible to consider removal or extinction of the project. Political support can also keep alive a project that should be terminated

minimize escalation of commitment

• set limits → what criteria and performance justify continued investment in the project or program

• avoid bystander effect

• avoid bad mood → when upset they choose higher risk and higher payoff options

• recognize sunk costs

• external review → remove or replace original decision makers from deliberations because they are biased

abilene paradox

group members desire to avoid conflict and reach consensus at all costs.

• Pluralistic ignorance → adopt a position because they feel other members desire it; don’t challenge one another because they want to avoid conflict or achieve consensus

self limiting behavior

less likely to speak up if individual team members are intimidated or feel that their efforts won’t be worthwhile

causes…

• presence of an expert, a strong argument (especially if there’s decision fatigue), lack of self-confidence, rival decisions (don’t see how the decision impacts themselves or something important, they’ll self-limit), conformity, a faulty decision-making climate (when easily frustrated and believe others are dispassionate, involved or apathetic)

to avoid the Abilene paradox

confront the issue in a team setting, conduct a private vote, minimize status differences, utilize the scientific method (evidence makes the decision, not their beliefs), provide a formal forum for controversial views, take responsibility for failure

risky shift

when someone is advised to do something even if it has only a slightly better than 50-50 change of success

cautious shift

individual advisors are cautious but when the same people are in a group that collectively insist on even lower odds

group polarization

tendency for group discussion to intensify group opinion, producing more extreme judgements than might be obtained by pooling the views seperatly → grows stronger with time

information dependent

lack information that another member has

need to be right

tendency to look to the group to define what reality is the more people that hold the opinion, themkore right the answer seems to be

informational influence

stronger when people make private responses and communicate with the majority indirectly

need to be liked

tendency for people to agree with a group so that they can feel more like a part of that group

normative influences

need to be liked, stronger when people make public responses and are face-to-face with a majority

conformity

people bring their behaviors into alignment with a groups expectations beliefs → greater when people are uncertain, when they admire their team, need to be liked not ostracized

rational expectations model

people are fundamentally motivated to maximize their own utility which equals maximizing self-interest

norm of self-interest

no pervasive that people “invent” self-interest explanation about why they perform non-self serving acts (ex. Charity)

false consensus effect

tendency for people to believer others share their own views when they actually don’t

vicarious licensing

more likely to express prejudiced and immoral attitudes when their group members past behavior has established non-prejudiced credentials

desensitization

after the behavior line is crossed it often becomes desensitized

accountability

implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one’s beliefs, feelings and actions to others

accountability in organization decision making

• to an audience with known vs unknown views → people who know what conclusion the audience wants to hear often conform

• pre-decision vs post-decision → once people commit to a decision they attempt to justify their decisions

• outcome vs process → accountability for outcomes → greater escalation behavior but for process increase effectiveness

• legit vs illegitimate → if illigitiment (intrusive and insulting) any beneficial affects of accountability may fail or backfire

contemplation

morally oriented conversation in the face of decision making

eliminate conflicts of interest

when a person isn’t incentivized to act in accordance with the best interest of the organization

create cultures of integrity

culture emerges as a result of design factors in the organization and the team t

trickle-down model

leaders play a prominent role in influencing employees propensity to be ethical and helpful

hypocrisy-by-association effect

employee fails to practice what an organization preaches

future self orientation

people who feel continuity with their future selves are more likely to behave in ethically responsible ways

inquiry

open process designation to generate multiple alternatives foster the echange of ideas and produce a well-tested solution

advocacy

approach decision making as a contest although they don’t necessarily compete openly or conspicuously. Advocate for different options. Hold back information buttress their arguments. Personalities and egos come to play, solution comes from test of strength.

• make vigorous debate the norm and structure debates (point-counterpoint and intellectual watchdog

construction conflict

critical thinking and rigorous debate, brings issues into focus and allows leaders to make more informed choices

• cognitive (substances) → relates to the work at hand. Healthy, disagreements over ideas, assumptions and differing views

• affective (interpersonal) → emotional, personal friction rivalries and clashing personalities. Diminishes people want to cooperate

consideration

if they felt the process was fair they’re willing to commit themselves to the resulting decision even if their views don’t prevail. Did the leader actually listen and weigh their views carefully

closure

• deciding too early → people desire to be team players overrides their willingness to engage in critical thinking and thoughtful analysis so they go for the first plausible option

• deciding to late → unchecked advocacy, gridlock, bend over backwards to ensure even participation.

to periodically assess the decision making process

• multiple alternatives (avoid settling to quickly)

• assumption testing (confirm assumption by critically examining them)

• well-defined criteria

• dissent and debate

• perceived fairness