Group Decision-Making Module Notes

Definition: A collective procedure in which multiple people analyze a problem, evaluate alternative actions, and select a preferred solution.
- Same cognitive steps as individual decision-making, but executed jointly.
Potential Pay-offs
- Builds consensus & commitment ("buy-in") among stakeholders.
- Encourages creativity via idea cross-fertilization.
- Enhances collective memory and information diversity.
Limits
- Not suited for emergencies or time-critical choices.
- Can suffer from several process losses (outlined later).
Guiding Question: "Are many heads really better than one?"
Answer: Sometimes yes, sometimes no—context dependent.

Forming
- Initial assembly; members explore "who is who?" and "how do we work?"
- High uncertainty, tentative interactions, testing ground rules.
Storming
- Conflict & anxiety phase; jockeying for roles, leadership, influence.
- Power struggles, disagreement about procedures or ideas.
Norming
- Rules of engagement crystallize (explicit "team contracts" or emergent norms).
- Growing cohesion; clarified roles; acceptance of group procedures.
Performing
- Efficient, cohesive operation; synergy is high ("finish each other’s sentences").
- Risk: over-cohesion → Groupthink.
Adjourning ("Adjourning" sometimes spelled "Adjourning")
- Task completion & disbanding; reflection on successes/failures; possible restart if new members join (cycle restarts at Forming).
Key Principle: The team moves together; if one member is stuck in Storming, the whole team effectively is.

Positive/Cooperative Interdependence → generally better decisions than:
- Negative/Competitive Interdependence (members work at cross-purposes).
Groups outperform individuals particularly on complex tasks when cooperation is high.

Idea Generation: Interaction sparks novel solutions not produced individually.
Error Detection: Multiple perspectives help spot & correct mistakes/cognitive biases.
Expanded Collective Memory: More minds = larger knowledge base.
Unique Information Sharing
- Each member may possess distinct, non-redundant data (e.g., one person’s recruiting expertise).
- When shared, overall decision dataset enlarges.
Greater Buy-in & Empowerment
- Participation breeds commitment; decisions feel owned by members rather than imposed.
Skill Development & Role-Modeling
- Observing skilled decision makers sharpens others’ analytic abilities.

Definition: A deterioration of mental efficiency & moral judgment due to in-group pressure for unanimity.
Classic Symptoms
1. Illusion of Invulnerability – "We’ve always succeeded; we can’t fail now."
2. Collective Rationalization – Dismissing contrary evidence ("Critics just aren’t as informed as we are").
3. Belief in Inherent Morality – Assuming group morality guarantees sound/ethical choices.
4. Stereotyping Outsiders – Opponents viewed as inferior or misguided ("lawyers will argue anything").
5. Direct Pressure on Dissenters – "If you think we’re wrong, maybe you should exit the team."
6. Self-Censorship – Individuals withhold doubts ("Everyone else agrees; I must be off-base").
7. Illusion of Unanimity – Silence interpreted as consent ("Looks like we all agree").
8. Mindguards – Members who shield the group/leader from dissenting views.
Countermeasures
- Assign a formal Critical Evaluator (vs. a Mindguard).
- Leaders adopt an impartial stance when posing the problem.
- Run parallel groups tackling the same issue.
- Encourage members to consult their home units for outside feedback.
- Invite external experts to broaden knowledge base.
- Designate a Devil’s Advocate role to challenge emerging consensus.
- Sub-grouping & later plenary "second-chance" meetings to revisit decisions.

Definition: Post-discussion attitudes become more extreme in the direction of members’ initial leanings.
Mechanism
- Occurs frequently on risky decisions – responsibility diffuses across members.
- Extreme rhetoric inside an "echo chamber" amplifies shared views.
Consequences
- Heightened extremism (political polarization, radicalization, even terrorism).
- Reduced openness to alternative viewpoints.
Prevention
- Establish respectful, inquiry-based discussion norms.
- Use trained facilitators to monitor language & dynamics.
- Start with silent ballots/surveys to surface diverse views before conversation.
- Again, embed a Devil’s Advocate to voice opposing frames.

Causes of Dominance: Assertive personality, persuasive charisma, perceived expertise, or formal status/authority.
Effects: Idea pool narrows to the dominant voice; minority insights suppressed.

Definition: Individuals reduce effort when contributions seem less identifiable/valuable within a group.
Impact: Dulls brainstorming, strategic thinking, and the very diversity group work seeks.
- Particularly harmful for low-status or novice members whose fresh perspectives are vital.

Definition: Tendency to discuss commonly held information disproportionately while overlooking unique, unshared data.
Outcome: Familiar facts feel more valid (availability heuristic), yielding overconfidence & insufficient fact-checking.

Clarify task & criteria without prescribing preferred answers.
Structure sessions:
1. Silent idea generation ➔
2. Round-robin sharing ➔
3. Critical evaluation (devil’s advocate) ➔
4. Re-survey or rank options.
Maintain balanced participation (facilitator tracks airtime).
Explicitly solicit unique information from each member.
Periodically revisit assumptions & risk assessments.
Plan for a post-decision Adjourning review: What worked? What would we improve next time?

Overconfidence (invulnerability) can blind moral reasoning; explicit humility safeguards integrity.
Diversity of thought is ethically vital: silencing minority views can entrench injustice.
Empowerment vs. Tokenism: Genuine inclusion means valuing contributions, not merely inviting attendance.

Organizational Behavior: Mirrors prior lessons on cognitive heuristics, power dynamics, and culture.
Crisis Management: Highlights when solo or hierarchical decisions trump group deliberation.
Innovation & Creativity: Balances synergy benefits (process gains) against conformity traps (losses).

5 developmental stages: Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning.
Process Gains > Process Losses only when mitigating structures are in place.
Risky-shift pattern: Group likelihood of choosing high-risk option often exceeds individual baseline.