Small Group Communication: Forming & Sustaining Teams
CHAPTER 10. MAKING DECISIONS IN GROUPS
Learning Objectives
Understand the pros and cons of individual and group decision-making.
Compare and contrast different group decision-making methods.
Describe strategies for reaching consensus.
Recognize the signs of groupthink.
Introduction
The question of whether two heads are better than one in decision-making depends on various factors.
This chapter discusses the advantages and drawbacks of group decision-making and identifies methods for making decisions collectively.
Strategies for achieving consensus and an exploration of groupthink—common flaws in group decision-making—are addressed.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision-Making
Advantages
Diversity of Perspective:
Groups draw upon experiences and perspectives from multiple individuals, enhancing creativity and leading to more effective decisions.
Diverse groups can generate better ideas due to varying backgrounds and experiences.
Research indicates that management teams using diverse, debating groups achieve comprehensive and profitable decisions (Simons et al., 1999).
Enhanced Enjoyment:
Task enjoyment increases among team members involved in group decision-making.
Easier Implementation:
Decisions made collectively garner greater investment from members, facilitating smoother implementation.
Disadvantages
Process Losses:
Encouraged by the complex nature of group dynamics, process losses can occur due to coordination difficulties, where team members struggle to align their inputs and schedules (Miner, 1984).
Social Loafing:
Individual contributions may falter as members rely on others, which can undermine group effectiveness.
Groupthink:
Groups may favor conformity, avoiding critical evaluation of ideas.
Time Consumption:
Group decision-making generally requires more time than individual sessions, as discussions involve multiple perspectives.
Situational Factors in Decision-Making
Individual vs. Group:
In emergencies or when quick decisions are needed, individual decisions are often preferable.
Individual decision-making is suitable when the decision-maker possesses all necessary information with no anticipated implementation challenges.
If the decision necessitates information and skills from multiple individuals or if the situation demands collaborative input over a longer time frame, group decision-making may yield better results.
Methods of Making Group Decisions
Research suggests groups typically generate more ideas and accuracy when a preferred solution is present, but operate more slowly than individuals (Hoy et al., 1982).
Group leaders under pressure may unilaterally decide to prioritize speed over accuracy.
Categories of Decision-Making Methods
“A PLOP”:
A non-decision where discussion occurs but no action is taken, which may be harmless or lead to worse problems later if ignored.
Delegation to an Expert:
Groups may defer to an experienced member or an external expert to decide when the group lacks consensus.
Averaging:
Members may find a middle ground via averaging individual opinions, particularly applicable to quantitative decisions, e.g., deciding a gift budget by averaging proposed amounts.
Voting:
An efficient method that provides a clear decision and is widely understood; however, it can create dissatisfaction among minority members due to its win/loss nature.
Majority vote: More than half support a proposal.
Two-thirds vote: Higher support threshold required.
Consensus:
Ideal for fostering support through inclusive and cooperative discussion. Achieving consensus includes repeated discussions and modifications until agreement is reached.
Advantages include improved accuracy and member satisfaction (Roch, 2007; Mohammed & Ringseis, 2001).
It is crucial to distinguish consensus from unanimity; consensus allows for continued dialogue, while unanimity may mask dissent.
Guidelines for Seeking Consensus
Define Consensus: Ensure group members understand consensus.
Encourage Participation: Solicit input from all members, including quieter voices.
Practice Active Listening: Prioritize honest listening over judgment.
Be Patient: Allow for time as consensus takes longer than voting.
Seek Mutually Acceptable Solutions: Avoid arbitrary decisions that overlook serious objections.
Resolve Gridlock: Actively seek alternatives when initial agreements are stalled.
Establish a decision deadline and a “safety valve” whereby members can veto a course of action responsibly but are required to propose alternatives.
Leadership Role: Leaders can facilitate consensus through guided discussions and by asking for objections after initial agreement indications, ensuring all members feel heard.
History of Consensus Decision-Making
Groups characterized by respect and evenly distributed authority tend to use consensus effectively.
Historical examples include the Quakers and the Mennonite Church, who have long practiced consensus as a principle in meetings.
Groupthink
Definition: Groupthink is a phenomenon where group pressure undermines decision quality due to reduced evaluation capabilities, leading to flawed outcomes.
Janis (1972) describes eight symptoms of groupthink:
Illusion of Invulnerability: Creates overconfidence and encourages risky behavior among members.
Collective Rationalization: Members dismiss warnings and negative feedback.
Belief in Inherent Morality: Members ignore ethical implications of decisions.
Stereotyped Views of Out-Groups: Underestimates rivals’ potential responses.
Direct Pressure: Members opposing group norms experience pressure to conform.
Self-Censorship: Individuals downplay their doubts or counterarguments.
Illusion of Unanimity: Group consensus perceived due to self-censorship and pressure.
Emergence of Self-Appointed Mindguards: Certain members protect the group from dissenting information.
Factors Influencing Groupthink
Symptoms tend to be heightened in larger and cohesive groups, as members often develop strong interpersonal bonds (Esser, 1998; Mullen et al., 1994).
Frequent occurrence of groupthink symptoms correlates negatively with the quality of decisions.
Recommendations for Avoiding Groupthink
Group Strategies
Discuss groupthink symptoms openly and how to avoid them.
Designate a rotating devil’s advocate in meetings to present opposing views.
Invite outside experts to provide feedback and perspectives.
Cultivate a culture that values diverse ideas and encourages ethical debates regarding decisions.
Individual Strategies
Self-monitor for signs of groupthink and adjust behavior accordingly.
Refrain from self-censorship and notice the pressure to conform.
Leadership Strategies
Periodically split the group into subgroups for discussions.
Empower multiple groups to address the same problem when feasible and critical.
Maintain impartiality during discussions by not favoring positions upfront.
Promote an environment encouraging critical analysis throughout decision-making.
Create an anonymous feedback system to facilitate open participation.
Review & Reflection Questions
Do you prefer making decisions individually or in groups? Explain your preference.
What decision-making methods have you used in groups, and what were their pros and cons?
Have you experienced groupthink? If so, how did you handle it?
What strategies could you implement to counter groupthink in your teams?
References
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.
Hartley, P., & Dawson, M. (2010). Success in groupwork. St. Martin’s Press.
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Random House.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.
Miner, F. C. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 112–124.
Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 310–335.
Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204.
Parker, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Meeting excellence: 33 tools to lead meetings that get results. Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, R. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 313–324.
Roch, S. G. (2007). Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benefits of anticipated discussion, consensus, and rater motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 14–29.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.