Group Decision Making, Leadership, and Power
Fundamentals of Group Decision Making
Introduction to Collective Intelligence - A foundational principle in social psychology, as stated by Myers (2002), is: ‘None of us alone is as smart as all of us together.’ - Advantages of Group Composition - Increased Information: More people in a group naturally provide access to a larger pool of information and perspective. - Enhanced Productivity: More people allow for a greater volume of work to be accomplished in a shorter time frame. - Specialization: Members can delegate tasks so individuals do what they are best at (specialization of labor). - Analytical Processing: Groups can discuss and process information more critically by checking for errors and vetting ideas. - Decision Standards: Groups utilize established standards for reaching a conclusion, such as majority rule. - Commitment and Follow-through: People are empirically more likely to follow through on a plan if they were part of the group that collectively decided upon it. - Process Complexity: The effectiveness of a group is not attributed to a single mechanism but is driven by several interrelated processes. - Real-World Examples: Typical effective decision-making groups include investment groups, advisory boards, and medical teams/doctors.
Comparative Effectiveness: Individuals vs. Groups
Majorie E. Shaw’s (1932) Research - Shaw conducted a landmark study comparing individuals to groups using the missionary/cannibal dilemma. - Finding: Individuals solved significantly fewer problems than groups did when presented with the same challenges.
Specific Group Success Indicators - Groups have been scientifically shown to: - Diagnose complex problems with higher accuracy. - Locate and retrieve information quicker than individuals acting alone. - Achieve better academic grades in collaborative settings.
Factors Contributing to Group Ineffectiveness - Despite their advantages, groups can fail due to: - Over-sampling shared information: Focusing only on what everyone already knows rather than unique data. - Social Loafing: Not everyone pulls their own weight; often, a few members do the bulk of the work. - Manipulation: Conversations and discussions can be steered or manipulated by dominant personalities. - Riskiness: Group dynamics can sometimes lead to riskier decisions than individuals would make. - Cohesion Issues: Excessive focus on group harmony can lead to groupthink.
Taxonomy and Anatomy of Group Decisions
Types of Decisions - The effectiveness of a group depends heavily on the nature of the task and whether a ‘correct’ solution exists: - Intellective Tasks: These have a definitive right or wrong answer (e.g., mathematical problems). Groups are usually superior in these tasks. - Judgmental Tasks: These involve value judgments with no single objective correct answer (e.g., a jury’s verdict). Groups are generally less effective here than in intellective tasks.
Functional Theory of Group Decision Making - This theory suggests that skilled decision-making groups are more likely to utilize specific procedures that improve the gathering, analysis, and weighting of information.
The Functional Model of Decision Making (Stages) - 1. Orientation: Defining the problem and planning the process. - 2. Discussion: Gathering and reviewing information. - 3. Decision: Selecting an alternative. - 4. Implementation: Putting the decision into action. - 5. Post-mortem discussion: Reviewing the outcome and process.
The Orientation Phase and Brainstorming
Orientation Specifics - The group defines the problem and maps out the strategy, goals, resources, and potential challenges. - Performance Correlation: Spending more time in the orientation stage typically results in better overall performance, though groups often rush through this phase. - Shared Mental Model: This stage involves developing common knowledge, tasks, and expectations, which assists in all subsequent stages.
Brainstorming (Alex Osborn) - Alex Osborn developed this technique after finding that traditional business meetings often inhibited the generation of new ideas. - Purpose: To allow for spontaneous, uninhibited idea generation. - The Four Rules of Brainstorming: - Be Expressive: Say whatever ideas come to mind. - Postpone Evaluation: No criticism is allowed during the generation phase. - Seek Quantity: The more ideas, the better. - Piggyback Ideas: Combine or build upon the ideas of others. - Equal Worth: Every person and every idea is treated as having equal value.
The Discussion Phase: Collective Information Processing
Information Distribution in Comments - Approximately of comments relate to opinions or analysis. - Approximately are suggestions. - Approximately focus on orientation.
Dialogue vs. Debate - Dialogue: Enables more facts to be shared and fosters a greater understanding of those facts. It makes participants feel more included in the discussion. - Debate: Often focuses on winning an argument rather than collective understanding.
Collective Memory Mechanisms - Cross-cueing: Recall is improved when one member’s statement triggers a memory in another member. - Transactive Memory: A system where information is distributed across different members so the group collectively ‘knows’ more than any individual. - Collaborative vs. Nominal Memory: Differences exist between how a group remembers together (collaborative) versus the sum of individual memories (nominal). - Record Keeping: Meeting minutes are critical for maintaining the group’s collective memory and preventing the loss of information. - Efficiency Risks: Loafing and free-riding can compromise the quality of the collective memory and discussion.
Alternative Generation - All alternatives are gathered with the understanding that there are no ‘wrong’ alternatives at this stage. - Consequences for each alternative must be discussed. - The group determines which alternatives are ready for final consideration; mutual encouragement is vital.
Deciding: Social Decision Schemes and Vroom’s Model
Social Decision Schemes - These are the strategies (explicit or implicit) used to select a single alternative: - Delegation: An individual or subgroup (oligarchy) makes the decision for the whole. - Statistical Aggregation/Averaging: Individual decisions are averaged (e.g., the MHS example). - Voting/Plurality: Utilizing majority rule; sometimes a higher threshold (supermajority) is required. - Consensus/Unanimous Decision: Continuous discussion until everyone agrees (standard for juries). - Random Choice: Leaving the decision to chance.
Vroom’s Normative Model of Decision Making - This model predicts the effectiveness of decision procedures across various group settings: - Autocratic I & II (Decide): The leader either solves the problem alone or gathers information and then decides alone. - Consultative I & II (Consult): The leader consults either selected members or the full group before making the final decision. - Group (Facilitate/Delegate): The leader discusses the issue with the group, and together they develop a solution. The leader acts as a chairperson without pushing a specific solution, allowing the group to make the final choice.
Discussion Obstacles - Discussion is rarely equal; not all voices are heard. - Shared Information Bias: The tendency for groups to over-sample shared information. - Hidden Profiles: Unique information held by individuals may be missed because the group focuses on common knowledge. - Causes: Informational influence, normative influence, prioritizing consensus over correctness, initial individual preferences, and impression management goals. - Solutions: Better leadership, increasing group diversity, and using Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS).
Implementation and Post-Mortem Analysis
Implementation Dynamics - People generally desire closure once a decision is reached. - Continuous evaluation is necessary; the level of participation in the decision directly affects the degree of acceptance during implementation.
Coch & French (1948) – Harwood Manufacturing Company Study - Studied industrial resistance to change. - Finding: High levels of participation significantly reduce resistance to change. - Negative Outcomes: If participation is limited, it leads to hostility, high turnover, and decreased efficiency.
Post-Mortem Discussions - These are used to bring closure and provide learning opportunities for future decisions. - Process: The group reconvenes (though this rarely happens in practice) to evaluate both the final decision and the process used to reach it. - Review: They review the implementation results, identify lessons learned, and record them for the next project.
Group Polarization and Groupthink
Group Polarization - Contrary to moving toward a moderate mean, group responses often become more extreme following a discussion.
Groupthink (Janis) - Defined as distorted thinking that prevents rational decision-making due to a desire for unanimous agreement despite conflicting evidence. - Historical Disasters: Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs invasion and the NASA Challenger disaster.
Symptoms of Groupthink - Overestimation of the Group: Illusions of invulnerability and an unquestioned belief in the group’s morality. - Close-mindedness: Collective rationalizations and stereotyping of outgroups. - Pressure Toward Uniformity: - Self-censorship: Members withhold doubts. - Illusion of Unanimity: Silence is mistaken for agreement. - Direct Pressure: Applied to any member who expresses dissent. - Mindguards: Self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information. - The Abilene Paradox (Harvey, 1988): Related to pluralistic ignorance, where a group decides on a course of action that no individual member actually wants. - Sunk Costs: Entrapment based on previous investments.
Causes of Groupthink - High cohesiveness and overly cordial relationships. - A lack of internal conflict or debate. - Structural faults such as insulation of the group and tight leader control. - Stressful situational contexts and the tendency to exaggerate positives while minimizing negatives.
Prevention of Groupthink - Avoid reaching a consensus prematurely. - Maintain an open leadership style. - Assign a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ role or use subgroup discussions. - Consciously correct misperceptions and biases using structured decision-making techniques.