DECISION MAKING

Group Decision Making

None of us alone is as smart as all of us

together (Myers, 2002)
 more people = more information
 more people to do more work
 more people means people can do what they
are best at
 groups can discuss, process information
(check for errors, etc.)
Group Decision Making
 groups have standards for deciding (e.g.,
majority rules)
 people are more likely to follow through if
part of a group that decided
 is not caused by any one mechanism,
but by several processes
 More people = more support
 All of these mechanisms can make
decisions faulty
 Why make decisions in Groups?
 The effectiveness of groups as decision
makers

 Examples: investment groups, advisory boards, doctors
 Individual vs. group decision making
– Majorie E. Shaw’s (1932) study of groups vs. individuals
(missionary/cannibal dilemma)
– Individuals solved fewer problems than groups

– Groups have also been shown to diagnose problems

better (Glick & Staley, 2007), find information quicker
(Lazonder, 2005), have better grades (Zimbardo et al.,
2003)
 Why Groups Might Be Ineffective?

 Over sample shared information

 Not everyone pulls their own weight –
sometimes work just done by a few
 Conversations/discussions are manipulated
 Groups may be more risky
 Cohesion and groupthink
 Type of Decisions

Group effectiveness also depends on a

demonstrated correct solution
 Intellective Tasks (right or wrong answer –
e.g., math problems ) vs. Judgmental Tasks
(no correct answer – jury’s verdict)
 Group members are superior in intellective
tasks than judgment tasks.
 Anatomy of Group Decision
Functional Theory of Group Decision Making
Although no two groups reach decisions in the same way -
skilled decision making groups are more likely use
procedures that enhance the way they gather, analyze, and
weight information

Phases of Decision Making

- Orientation
- Discussion
- Decision
- Implementation
- Post-Mortem Discussion
 Defining the
Problem
Orientation
Orientation
Planning the Process

Discussion
Functional Model of
Decision Making
 Orientation
 Group defines the problem – that it exists,
what it is, does everyone understand it
Decision  Procedures: Who is in the group? Who
No Decision plays what role? Group rules are set
Reached  Procedures: Sets strategy, goals, &
resources/challenges
Decision
Reached  More time spent in this stage the greater
the performance – often not the case
 Development of shared mental model –
Implementation knowledge, tasks, expectations that group
has in common – helpful to refer to for the
next stages/phases
 Brainstorming
 Brainstorming
 Created by Alex Osborn (1941), Advertising
Exec
 Found that business meetings were inhibiting
the creation of new ideas
 Was looking for rules that would open up
people’s minds
 Amassed all the ideas in a spontaneous
fashion
 Brainstorming
 Brainstorming rules
 Be expressive
 Postpone evaluation
 Seek quantity
 Piggyback ideas
 Every person and every idea has equal worth
 Remembering
Information

Exchanging
Discussion Information

Processing
Information

 Collective Information Processing Model: A collective

gathering and review of info. needed to make decisions
 Gathering & Remembering Information – 30 % of all
comments made by group members are expressions of
opinions and analysis of issues,10% are suggestions, &
10% are regarding orientation
 Exchanging information: Acquiring & sharing data
 Dialogue vs. Debate
 Dialogue enables more facts to be shared, a greater
understanding of the facts, & people feel more a part of the
discussion/decision
 Remembering
Information

Exchanging
Discussion Information

Processing
Information

 Collective Memory – a group’s combined memory

(encode, store, retrieve)
 Cross-cueing – recall of memories improved
through group members’ statements
 Transactive Memory – information is distributed to
various members of the group
 Nominal groups vs. collaborative groups in memory
- weakness in group memory - importance of
keeping records (meeting minutes) – loafing or free
riding
 Remembering
Information

Exchanging
Discussion Information

Processing
Information

 Alternatives are gathered – no wrong alternatives

 Consequences are discussed for each
 Which alternatives are ready for release
 Encouragement is key between members
 Deciding
 Social Decision Schemes – strategy used
to select a single alternative from various
alternatives proposed by the group – they are
explicit and implicit

 Delegation - an individual or subgroup within

the group makes the decision for the group
(oligarchy)

 Statistical Aggregation/Averaging – group

members’ individual decision are averaged
(MHS Example)
Deciding
 Social Decision Schemes
 Voting/Plurality Decisions – publicly or secret
ballot – 50% rule is used primarily, however,
sometimes more substantial percentages
are needed for a decision to become final
 Consensus/Unanimous Decison (discussion
to unanimity) – example Jury
 Random Choice/Decisions – final decision is
left to chance
 Individual vs. Group Decision
Making
 Vroom’s Normative Model of Decision Making:
theory of decision making that predicts the
effectiveness of decisional procedures across a
number of group settings
 Autocratic I & II (Decide) – leader solves the
problem on his/her own with information available
at the time or obtains information from group
members and then decides
 Consultative I & II (Consult) – leader either
shares the problem with selected group members
or the entire group
 Individual vs. Group Decision
Making
 Vroom’s Normative Model of Decision Making:
 Group (facilitate/delegate) – the leader discusses
the problem with the members of the group.
Together the leader and members devise options
for a solution.
 The leader acts as a chairperson of a committee
& does not try to influence the group to adopt a
certain a certain solution.
 Procedure must fit the problem to be solved and
the decision to be made – group eventually
makes the decision.
Individual vs. Group Decision
Making
 Group’s are prone to the planning
fallacy

Individuals underestimated the time they would

need for each phase of the task (planning,
analysis, etc.), but groups’ estimates were even
less accurate than individual’s.
 Discussion can be
challenging:

•Poor discussion skills

•Meetings (death by…)
•Wasted time (law of
triviality)
•Muddling through
Discussion is rarely equal: most group members’ voices are not heard

Percentage
 The Shared
Information
Bias

Oversampling
shared Causes
information  Informational influence
leads to poorer  Normative influence
decisions when  Emphasis on consensus vs.
a hidden profile
correctness
would be
 Initial preferences
revealed by
considering the  Impression management goals

unshared
information
more closely
 Reducing the Shared Information Bias
The SIB can be
reduced by
improving
information
exchange by:

 Good
leadership
 Increasing
diversity
 Using a GDSS
(group decision support system)

Discussion
 Type of Error

Sins of Commission
Sins of Omission
Sins of Imprecision
 Type of Error

Sins of Commission
Sins of Omission
Sins of Imprecision
Groups do not systematically check their work.
Instead, they defend their choices, seeking
reassurance rather than effectiveness.
 Implementation
 Implementation
 People often want closure with a made decision
 Constant evaluating the decision – participation is often
based on the process of decision making
 Adhering to the decision: Coch and French’s (1948)
Harwood Manufacturing Company (clothing mill) -
“Overcoming Resistance to Change” studies
 Attempted to find methods to reduce resistance through
participative measures.
 Participation is key in decision making and
implementation – if limited, hostility, turnover, & efficiency
decreases
 Post-Mortem Discussions

 Bringing closure and learning lessons to bring to

future decisions
 Gather group together again – doesn’t happen
very often
 Evaluate decisions made and decision making
process
 Review implementation of decision
 Look for lessons learned
 Record them
 What should we use next time?
 Group Polarization
 With more people in a group the thought is
that a decision would move closer to the mean
– this doesn’t always happen
 Group Polarization – the tendency to respond
in a more extreme way when making a choice
as part of a group, as opposed to when
responding individually
 Social comparison theory
 Persuasive-arguments theory
 “Risk-supported wins” social decision scheme
 Polarization and Risk

 Group Polarization: A shift in the direction of greater

extremity in individuals' responses
 What is Groupthink?
 Janis’s theory of groupthink – a distorted style of
thinking that renders group members incapable of
making rational decisions.
 Phenomenon wherein people seek unanimous
agreement in spite of contrary facts pointing to
another conclusion
 Members try very hard to agree with one another
that they make mistakes that could easily be
avoided
 Example: Kennedy’s advisory group planning
the Bay of Pigs “covert op”, Nasa & the
Challenger Shuttle
 The theory identifies symptoms, causes, and
possible cures
Symptoms of Groupthink
 Overestimation of the group (illusions of
invulnerability, illusions of morality)
 Close-mindedness (rationalizations, stereotypes
about the outgroup)
 Pressures toward uniformity (self-censorship, the
illusion of unanimity, direct pressure on
dissenters, self-appointed mindguards).
 Pluralistic ignorance and the Abilene Paradox
(Harvey, 1988)
 Entrapment and sunk costs

 Defective decision-making processes

Causes
 Causes of Groupthink
 Cohesiveness
 Cordial relationships
 Lack of conflict
 Structural Faults
 Insulation
 Control of the leader

 Provocative Situational Context

 How members deal with stress
 Exaggerate the positive and minimize the
negative
 Can Groupthink Be Prevented?

 Limiting premature seeking of concurrence

 Open style of leadership
 Devil’s advocate, subgroup discussions
 Correcting misperceptions and biases
 Using effective decision-making techniques