2 discussions due in 7 hours

combs

06CH_Cogent_Behavior_2e.pdf

Home >Education homework help >2 discussions due in 7 hours

199

6Decision Making

monkeybusiness/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Correlate individual and group decision making and explain the fundamental difference in their processes.

• Outline the major elements of sensemaking in the group decision-making process.

• Identify the major categories of social decision schemes and conditions for their advantageous use.

• Explain how bias and social influence become determining factors in decision quality.

• Describe the major dysfunctions that can occur in the decision-making process when social influence is detached from critical thinking.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 199 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. Making decisions is a specialized form of problem solving. 2. Consensus building is not relevant when group decisions are achieved by voting. 3. Decision making differs from problem solving in that problem framing is not an issue in

decision making. 4. Groupthink enables higher quality decision making in groups. 5. Group decision-making discussions tend to naturally expand collective knowledge by

sharing little-known and expert information regarding the decision problem.

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction Molly, the head of human resources at a midsized publishing company, is interested in instituting work-from-home days for the organization’s employees. She has worked at other companies with successful work-from-home policies and thinks a similar policy might benefit her current organization. Molly must decide whether to suggest instituting the new policy at a company board meeting in 3 months’ time. The issue is complex, and she decides to assist her decision-making process by putting together a small advisory team to explore the idea from multiple angles and examine variations on how such a policy could be successfully implemented.

To this end, Molly selects seven people—four midlevel managers and three profession- als—to serve on the team, all from areas that will be affected by the new policy if it is adopted. Two of the managers (Tomas and Gerald) have been with the company for several years, and Molly has chosen them to participate in groups and committees in the past. One of the other managers, Casey, originally suggested the idea of instituting work- from-home days to Molly and is aware of her favorable view of such policies. The other four members of the team—the remaining manager (Jose) and the three professionals (Alicia, Hae, and Michael)—have never before been asked to consider the establishment of a company-wide policy and therefore feel honored they were chosen to participate in the process.

Having previously served in similar groups, Tomas and Gerald immediately have valuable input on how to organize team meetings, and they set performance goals for the coming weeks. Everybody is pleased and impressed with their obvious experience and helpfulness, and by the end of the first meeting, Tomas and Gerald have emerged as the team’s natural leaders. When they initiate discussion of the issue at the next team meeting, Tomas and Gerald immediately express their own preferences for how to structure a work-from-home policy. Having found that they are in agreement with each other, they put up a united front and dominate the discussion. Hae, Michael, and Jose all show their support for Tomas and Gerald’s ideas, as they want to appear involved and do not want to create any unnecessary conflict that might come from questioning leaders who have thus far proved knowledgeable. They feel privileged to be part of the group and do not want to risk their involvement by offering divergent opinions.

The other professional, Alicia, once had a bad experience with a corporation that allowed employees to work from home. That organization’s policy was vaguely written, which

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 200 8/19/16 9:34 AM

allowed less motivated employees to take advantage of it. When Alicia hears Gerald’s policy preference, which is strikingly similar to her last company’s, she shares this experi- ence. When she states that the policy allowed for abuses, Tomas cuts her off and dismisses her input, claiming that no one in this company would behave that way. Since no one else disputes this statement, and Tomas is senior to Alicia, she feels rebuked and obligated to let the matter drop. She chooses to withhold her opinions and suggestions moving for- ward and simply support whatever the group decides.

Casey, the team member who originally suggested a work-from-home policy to Molly, comes to all the committee meetings with the latest research regarding such policies. However, because Casey feels responsible for proposing the idea, the information he has gathered from outside sources is all positive and generally supports decisions already made by the team. Casey also makes an effort to speak with other employees about a work-from-home policy, but he keeps the more negative comments and suggestions to himself instead of sharing them with the group.

Molly periodically attends meetings to get a feel for what the team members are discuss- ing and to keep an eye on their progress. Although she simply observes these meetings, she has noticed some worrying dynamics. First, Tomas and Gerald have apparently domi- nated the team and are steering it in a single direction, without really evaluating other options. Molly notices that Casey’s input is uniformly positive, and she wonders if the pre- ferred option is getting any real critical analysis. Although she’s not sure what happened in the meetings she missed, Molly notes that Hae, Michael, Jose, and Alicia rarely speak up during meetings and never offer new or contradictory opinions. Halfway to the decision deadline, Molly steps in to see if she can help the team break away from these negative dynamics. She tells the team that she’d like to check in on what they’ve come up with so far by consulting with each member individually, then all together as a group.

In the individual interviews, Molly draws out Alicia’s concerns, finds out that Casey has been biasing his input by only presenting positive information, and learns that Tomas and Gerald have been leading the team to explore only their own initial suggestions. She also learns that Hae, Michael, and Jose privately feel that Alicia was treated poorly and wish that the team had spent more time considering alternative options. Each, however, feels that they are alone in this view and that the majority of the group is happy with Tomas and Gerald’s leadership and their suggestions. In effect, the team has a one-sided focus on the positive aspects of a single policy.

In the group consultation, Molly allows the team members to present their findings together, and she praises them for their work so far. She then gives them some construc- tive feedback and direction for the second half of their exploration process. She says she has a good feel for the pros regarding the policy they have explored but would like to have at least two different alternatives to which to compare them. She would also like each member of the team to play devil’s advocate—which she hopes will illuminate the negatives of each policy option. She suggests that the team assign different members to explore each side of three distinct policies. As the team has seven members, she suggests that Casey continue as liaison to other company employees, gathering both positive and negative input to support his team. Molly says she’d like to see their final presentation in debate form, and she thanks the team members for their invaluable input. She ends the meeting by telling them that they are truly helping her make an informed decision and that if she goes to the board to suggest the new policy, she will take a written presenta- tion of their findings—and credit them to the team.

Introduction

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 201 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

Chapter 6 focuses on the process of group decision making, the methods by which groups collectively seek an outcome, and the major influences on decision quality and process dynamics. We begin with a general overview of the decision-making process and the differences and relationship between individual and group decision making.

6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview In Chapter 5 we learned that problem solving is the process of seeking a solution to a given problem. Decision making is a specialized form of problem solving in which an individual or group chooses between two or more known options. Rather than discovering or generating ideas, information, or processes, solving a decision problem primarily involves evaluation. When evaluating an option, individuals make a judgment about its value; when making a deci- sion, they compare the relative value of different options and choose the one most valuable to the situation at hand. You probably engage in decision making every day. For example, you may decide to save money by bringing lunch to work instead of buying it, or to seek recogni- tion from your manager by volunteering for a special assignment instead of keeping quiet. Of course, we could just flip a coin, or choose one option over another based on superficial fac- tors. In such cases, however, the quality of the decision’s outcome—our choice—is largely left to chance. While this style of decision making is relatively quick and easy, this strategy cannot be relied on to consistently generate quality decisions.

At the most basic level, quality decisions depend on one’s ability to acquire and use decision- relevant knowledge to critically analyze and evaluate options. This explanation is deceptively simple, however. Acquiring and using decision-relevant knowledge takes skill and effort. Decision makers are not always gifted with the time or resources to comprehensively inves- tigate and evaluate decision options. Regardless of time, however, a decision must still be made. Next, we examine two distinctive approaches to individual decision making, the rela- tionship between these approaches, and the factors that encourage decision makers to lean more heavily toward one approach or the other.

Rational Versus Intuitive Decision Making Individuals approach decision making on two distinct levels: rational and intuitive. Rational decision making is characterized by the use of critical thinking and deductive reasoning to make value-maximizing choices that satisfy the bounds of situational constraints (Shafir & LeBoeuf, 2002). Rational decision making is the aspect of human nature that leads people to question the differences between various options, evaluate their relative value given the decision’s context, and prove that one option is better than the rest. Rational decision making requires individuals to seek comprehensive information about each option and use it to criti- cally evaluate and rank the options’ relative values based on logical expectation and fact. This process is stymied, however, when information is not available or there is not enough time to allow for comprehensive information gathering, processing, and evaluation. In such cases, many people rely instead on intuition.

Intuitive decision making involves making choices based on unconscious associations between disparate pieces of information; such choices tend to be based in experiential and emotional biases (Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011; Dane & Pratt, 2007). Intuitive decision making is the aspect of human nature that urges people to trust and follow their “gut instinct.”

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 202 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

Throughout our lifetime, experiences become imprinted in our memory, embedded with spe- cific emotional, psychological, and physical responses that can be unconsciously triggered when we encounter stimuli that remind us of those past experiences. When we intuitively feel one option is better than another, we are unconsciously accessing past experiences that share some similarity with our current situation. In the case study that heads the chapter, for exam- ple, Alicia’s bad experience with a policy similar to the one suggested by Tomas and Gerald caused her to have an immediate negative reaction. Alicia could be right in objecting to that particular policy; however, good decision-making strategy would call for her to back up her intuitive response with a rational investigation of the potential positive and negative aspects of instituting that policy in a new setting. Effective decisions tend to combine the best aspects of the rational and intuitive approaches, supporting facts with experience and vice versa.

Rational and intuitive decision making are both natural extensions of basic learning; they are survival mechanisms that enable us to better understand our world, learn from previ- ous experience, assess current situations for negativity or danger, and respond appropriately. Although all decisions represent some combination of rational and intuitive decision making, specific contexts may dictate the use of one or the other. Individual decision makers tend to be “rule followers” and as such match their decision-making approach to situations as directed by their occupational identities (March, 1994). Occupational identities reflect internalized performance, role, and behavioral expectations based on social roles, status, occupational habits, and internally and externally imposed rules and norms (Kielhofner, 2002, 2008, Phelan & Kinsella, 2009; Skorikov & Vondracek, 2011). They provide the basic foundation for one’s approach to decision making, the behavior and activities regarded as appropriate and necessary, and procedural rules and norms. An organization can include employees who have very different occupational identities.

As an example, consider a cost analyst and a graphic designer who work for the same orga- nization. The analyst examines the company’s costs and seeks ways to improve operational efficiency. The designer is responsible for product branding, advertising, and packaging. Both may work for the same organization, but their role expectations and behaviors will be very different. Cost analysts require a strong background in accounting, for example, and are often certified management accountants. Their job tasks demand critical thinking and rational decision making based on hard facts. Deviating from logically proven patterns and proce- dures is not the norm. Graphic designers, on the other hand, require strong artistic ability and may or may not be formally trained. They are expected to engage in creative problem solving and seek innovative solutions based on their unique personal perspectives. While rational decision making is part of this process, intuition is valued as well. Both employees are valued for their abilities, which they each integrate into their occupational identity. The decision- making approach associated with their job requirements, along with its associated behaviors, becomes habitual.

Occupational identities can also be attached to specific types of task groups. For example, committee members are expected to represent a particular viewpoint, ideology, or larger affiliation and to generate collective decision outcomes through a formal voting process (Laughlin, 2011). Likewise, a fact-finding commission would be expected to follow behav- ioral and procedural norms associated with investigative research and critical thinking and take a primarily rational approach to decision making. Specific task types and acknowledged or habitual expertise can also shape occupational identities and affect the decision-making approach. Individuals undertaking tasks that require creative judgments, or those who have

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 203 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

been repeatedly rewarded or praised for following their instincts, tend to be more con- sciously focused on intuitive decision making; they allow the rational dimension to take place behind the scenes. Understanding how occupational identities influence the decision-making approach allows individuals to consciously adjust their decision-making process to make it more effective. This becomes increasingly important as more people are added to the mix and the decision-making process becomes more complex. Next, we examine the value of group decision making.

The Value of Group Decision Making Group decision making represents a social process wherein group members generate a col- lective decision outcome by integrating individual preferences or proclivities for action and response (Laughlin, 2011; Glynn & Barr, 2003). Although group decision making is more com- plex and time-consuming than individual decision making, groups remain a standard tool for effecting quality decisions across all levels of organizational hierarchy (Stasser & Dietz-Uhler, 2001). The value in using groups for decision making comes from their ability to pool relevant KSAs in order to:

1. enhance the ability to critically analyze and evaluate alternatives by sharing and vet- ting information and expertise, testing members’ objectivity and bias, and identify- ing and addressing deficiency or errors in information and assumptions; and

2. ground intuitive responses to specific alternatives by testing individual expectations and assumptions against those held by other group members.

As a result of these benefits, groups have an advantage over individual decision makers because:

• groups are better at coping with complexity (Vroom, 2003); • groups tend to have a more accurate perceptions of people and situations (Ruscher

& Hammer, 2006); • groups can more rapidly seek out and find task-relevant information (Lazonder,

2005); and • groups tend to generate higher quality judgments, estimates, and choices (Stasser &

Dietz-Uhler, 2001).

People who are involved in a decision-making process are also more open to any attitude or behavioral changes the decision may require (Lewin, 1943, 1951). Group decision making is therefore a preferred method when the decision outcome will introduce change to those involved and for high-stakes decisions that require buy-in from employees (such as imple- menting new company-wide software or adopting a new business practice).

As organizational environs have moved across virtual and international boundaries, business processes—and the decisions that fuel organizational progress and health—have become more complex. Groups are increasingly tasked with addressing these issues, and group deci- sion making occurs at every level of an organization. Table 6.1 shows the various types of group decisions made at different organizational levels.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 204 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

Table 6.1: Decisions and organizational level

Level Areas of effect Examples

Top managers and executive groups

Decisions are reflected in organizational strategy, policy, and process.

• Which products or services to offer • Whether to explore new market or

resource opportunities • Whether to acquire or dispose of assets

and acquisitions • Where to locate business offices and

production facilities • What should determine an organization’s

stance on employee diversity

Midlevel to lower level management groups

Decisions affect how strategic decisions, policy, and business processes are carried out.

• Hiring, firing, and promotion decisions • Individual job assignments • Whether and how to use groups or teams • Orchestrating organizational mandates

and initiatives

Work groups and teams Decisions pertain to task- related problem solving and coordinating group effort to accomplish goals.

• Setting agendas and performance goals • Delegating tasks and assigning roles • Coordinating meetings and work

schedules • Reaching agreement on how to frame a

problem and whether to select one option or course of action over others

Decisions made within organizational groups often support one another. As shown in Table 6.1, midlevel to lower level managers make decisions on how to implement the organiza- tional strategy or policy decisions made by top managers and executives. For example, a new policy decision from an organization’s leadership may call for employee diversity training. Before this can be implemented, however, several decisions must be made. These include selecting training groups, setting aside time and space, selecting what type of specific train- ing and training providers, and deciding how employees will be informed about these. Below management, working groups and teams decide how to accomplish their goals, organize their activities, engage in interactive processes, and resolve problems and issues. The value of group decision making does not lessen the value of individual decision making, however. Indeed, individual decision making is a critical part of the group decision-making process. We explore this vital connection in the next section.

Correlating Individual and Group Process The term preference has various meanings that depend on context. When it comes to decision making, individual preference refers to a personal inclination to choose one option over others, as the best among available options (Stasser, 1999). When engaging in solitary deci- sion making, individual preference becomes the decision outcome. The critical metaprocess that drives individual decision making is the evaluation of decision options in order to choose between them. As Figure 6.1 illustrates, group decision making includes all of the process areas encompassed by individual decision making but additionally requires the integration of members’ individual preferences into a collective decision outcome.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 205 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Group Decision Making

Accessing Resources

Defining Individual Preference

Decision Implementation

Sensemaking Decision Integration

Individual Decision Making

Sensemaking Accessing Resources

Defining Individual Preference

Decision Implementation

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

As Figure 6.1 portrays, the steps that make up individual and group decision making are nearly identical. Consider the first stage as an example: In both cases, sensemaking (described in the next section) involves processes that enable us to “make sense” of the decision problem and our relative roles in solving it. It is the addition of social interaction to each of the stages that truly differentiates and defines the group decision process. Although individual and group decision making are often thought of as discrete processes, they share a profound connection. Group decision making involves integrating individual preferences or proclivities for action and response to generate a collective decision outcome that all group members can accept and support. Before this integration occurs, however, individual members must come to their own conclusions about potential options and articulate their preference for a particular outcome.

In group decision making, individual preferences can be influenced and changed via social interaction and by accessing the total KSAs within the group. Group decision outcomes develop as members negotiate and coconstruct a shared understanding of the problem, artic- ulate decision-making needs and ways to address them, and decide how to integrate indi- vidual preferences and choices to generate an outcome that is supported by the whole group (Glynn & Barr, 2003). Effective decision making requires that:

• resources (including group member KSAs) are effectively utilized; • the decision outcome is produced in a timely manner and within designated time

constraints; • the decision outcome is able to garner support and be successfully implemented;

Figure 6.1: Individual versus group decision making

Group decision making adds an additional step—decision integration—to the individual decision- making process.

Group Decision Making

Accessing Resources

Defining Individual Preference

Decision Implementation

Sensemaking Decision Integration

Individual Decision Making

Sensemaking Accessing Resources

Defining Individual Preference

Decision Implementation

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 206 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

• the decision outcome is of high quality and based on sound reasoning and an informed process; and

• in groups, efficacy and process are improved, or at least not damaged, by the experi- ence (Johnson & Johnson, 2013).

The remaining sections touch on each of these points as they explore key elements of the group decision-making process.

6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem Decision making requires knowledge regarding the decision’s context, its options, and its desired outcome. In other words, it involves understanding why we are making a decision, what we what are choosing between, and how the various alternatives relate to the desired outcome. To make an effective decision, we must also be able to identify and access certain resources that can inform our choice. Finally, we must have some kind of plan for how we will address the decision-making process. Sensemaking is the crucial first step in individual and group decision-making process. It familiarizes the group with the decision problem via three elements: framing the decision problem, addressing resource requirements, and selecting a mode of engagement.

Our opening case study illustrated how an individual decision maker like Molly can augment her decision-making process by getting help from a group. In this case, individual and group sensemaking were separate, yet entwined. Both Molly and her advisory team had to deal with the three elements of sensemaking—framing the decision problem, addressing resource requirements, and selecting a mode of engagement—in order to progress through the pro- cess. The following paragraphs examine these elements in more depth.

Framing the Decision Problem To generate a quality decision, it is essential that we gather information on the decision con- text and various options. It is also critical that we develop our understanding of the nature of the choice and the expectations associated with a successful outcome. This aspect of sense- making is known as framing the decision problem. In group decision making, framing the deci- sion problem also involves developing a shared understanding regarding context, options, the nature of the choice, and expectations surrounding the collective decision outcome. As in any kind of problem solving, problem framing can profoundly affect the group’s decision-making process and outcome (Posner, 1973; Bardwell, 1991). In our opening case study, Molly chose to assist her decision-making process by assigning an advisory team to explore and evaluate the complex issue of adopting a work-from-home policy. The decision to do so is an outcome of Molly’s initial framing of the decision problem.

In considering the issue, Molly rapidly determines that there are actually two decision prob- lems to solve here, one subordinate to the other:

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 207 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

1. Should the company adopt a work-from-home policy? This is the main issue, and should the answer be no, the second decision problem becomes obsolete. However, if it is determined that the company should adopt a work-from-home policy, the sec- ond decision problem becomes a crucial element.

2. What type of work-from-home policy will be most beneficial to the organization?

Each of these questions is inherently complex. For example, what ratio of potential benefits of such a policy to potential effort required to implement it constitutes a yes or no answer? Likewise, does “beneficial” to the organization simply mean most easily implemented for immediate gains within the existing organizational structure? Or does it mean implementing a plan that will, in the long term, overhaul most of the organization’s existing structure and policies? (For example, such a long-term plan might allow the organization to expand the work-from-home concept and possibly adopt other workplace strategies that take advantage of the work-from-home infrastructure, such as moving a large portion of the business online and working in virtual teams.)

It’s clear to Molly that the complexity of these issues will require comprehensive research and evaluation. Although she’s excited by the possibility of adopting a work-from-home policy, she doesn’t have the time to effectively address the issue by herself. She also feels that a wider range of knowledge and perspectives would offer the best critical analysis of the different options. Finally, Molly is aware that adopting a work-from-home policy would significantly impact the day-to-day practice and work habits of those involved—she’d like get some input from the employees likely to be affected before she makes a decision. Framing the decision problem helps Molly determine that an advisory team can help her make an effective decision and directs her selection of team members from areas that will be impacted if the policy is instituted.

Once the team is put together, the team members pursue their own framing. Since Molly has put together the team for the express purpose of advising her on this issue, her initial briefing of the team plays a large part in their framing process. Molly describes the team’s purpose and sets project parameters. She introduces the team members to both aspects of the deci- sion problem and asks that they explore and evaluate each, regardless of their recommended answer for the first. She lets them know that their final outcome will serve to advise her deci- sion-making process, rather than be implemented as a decision itself. As the team moves into its own framing process, it identifies several key points from Molly’s briefing:

1. The team must thoroughly explore and evaluate both issues. 2. Molly will be the final judge of the situation, so rather than dithering over the mean-

ing of “beneficial to the company,” the team should focus on analyzing the pros and cons regarding the adoption of various work-from-home policies.

3. The team’s primary task is to inform Molly’s decision-making process. Therefore, its progress must be well documented, and its final presentation and suggestions must include concrete evidence and well-supported reasoning that Molly can easily recog- nize, sort through, and absorb.

As the team’s purpose is subordinate to Molly’s needs, its framing process is heavily based on how Molly frames the decision problem. Its task—to advise her on a specific issue—is con- crete and does not require reframing. The team’s framing process takes on a life of its own,

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 208 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

however, by providing critical guidance for how its tasks will be carried out and how its final outcome will be presented. By framing the decision problem, both Molly and the team gain an understanding of the nature and needs of the decision problem. This allows them to more easily address their resource requirements.

Before we examine the next element, however, let’s take moment to reflect on decision prob- lem framing. There are several key takeaways regarding decision making and framing:

• In group decision making, framing the decision problem involves developing a shared understanding regarding decision context, options, nature of the choice, and expectations surrounding the collective outcome.

• The knowledge gained by framing the decision problem informs the remaining sen- semaking process elements.

• When group process is subordinate to an individual decision maker, the individual’s framing process informs and directs group framing.

• The framing for decision problems that arise within the process is likewise informed and directed by the framing of the primary decision problem.

Next, we examine the second element of sensemaking: addressing resource requirements.

Addressing Resource Requirements Like any complex task or activity, effective decision making requires specific resources. Addressing resource requirements involves identifying the resources needed to effect a qual- ity decision (such as relevant information and task-related human, physical, and organiza- tional resources) and determining the best way to access them. Due to the complexity of her decision problem, Molly uses an advisory team as her primary resource for gathering infor- mation and weighing the options. That being the case, Molly carefully selects team members whose background and KSAs will stock the team with task-relevant resources.

The team immediately identifies Tomas and Gerald as useful resources for the team’s organi- zation. Although the case study does not detail this process, the team will also need to identify resources needed for its decision-making process and discuss how to access them. Resource needs include factual information on work-from-home policies and on the existing organi- zational structures and processes that would be affected by adopting them. Both are neces- sary to critically evaluate different policies and determine whether they could be successfully implemented to the organization’s benefit.

Some of these resources are gathered by accessing the KSAs of specific team members. For example, the team members are selected from areas that will be affected should the new policy be adopted. These members can contribute important information about existing orga- nizational structure and process and how it could be affected. Alicia also has previous experi- ence with another organization’s work-from-home policy. Other information resources are accessed indirectly and require the use of additional resources, such as when Casey gathers the latest research and collects employee comments and suggestions regarding work-from- home-policies. The means by which he gathers this information—namely, online sources and employees—represent other resources required for the team’s decision-making process.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 209 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

Ideally, team leaders Tomas and Gerald will discuss and organize all of these resources in the initial team meetings. This includes asking members to access their own relevant knowledge and assigning activities that pertain to gathering and accessing these resources to specific team members. It is clear, however, that regardless of whether Tomas and Gerald are aware of potentially important information possessed by specific members—such as Alicia—they are not effectively utilizing team resources. Tomas completely dismisses Alicia’s contribution, and the attitudes and behaviors expressed by both leaders encourage the team to focus on proving the positives of a single suggestion rather than critically exploring multiple options, as Molly has requested. Redirecting the team’s process and use of resources becomes critical for both the team’s and Molly’s decision-making process, as the team is her major resource for information and option evaluation. If the quality of the team’s outcome suffers from continued mismanagement of process and resources, the quality of Molly’s decision will be adversely affected as well.

There are several key takeaways regarding decision making and resources:

• Specific resource needs and methods of access will vary depending on whether the decision is being made by an individual or group, the type of decision problem being addressed, the decision maker’s familiarity with the context, and the specific KSAs they bring to the task.

• All decisions require information regarding alternatives and the reasons for choos- ing between them. If group members do not have adequate information on these, or if they determine more information is needed, then they will need the time, tools, and ability to access this information. This may involve simply accessing other mem- bers’ KSAs or gathering information from online or organizational sources. However, it can also entail lengthier processes of information gathering, investigation, inter- view, and study.

• Effective decision making depends on the successful utilization of resources.

Next, we outline the process and significance of sensemaking’s third element: selecting a mode of engagement.

Selecting a Mode of Engagement The mode of engagement selected for the group decision-making process defines member roles, responsibilities, and expectations for process interaction. In doing so, it answers two very pertinent questions: Who will actually make the decision, and what are group members expected to do to facilitate that process? Individual decision makers must also address this question, first by deciding whether they will act alone, and then in choosing the degree to which any additional people will be involved in their decision. Research has identified six basic modes of engagement for group decision making, each with its own set of role expecta- tions for the process (Vroom, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 2013). These are shown in Table 6.2.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 210 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

Table 6.2: Modes of engagement

Mode of engagement Who decides Group member roles

Command decision Individual decision from leader/ manager or designated expert

Group members learn of the deci- sion from their leader or manager. They may or may not contribute information to the decision maker. They do not actively participate in decision making.

Individual consultation Individual decision from leader/ manager

The group leader or manager shares the decision problem with individual group members. Members provide ideas and sug- gestions in private one-on-one consultations. Group members are not involved in the final selection, and the decision outcome may or may not reflect group opinion.

Group consultation Individual decision from leader/ manager

The group leader or manager dis- cusses the decision problem with the group as a whole. Members provide input before a decision is made. Group members are not involved in the final selection, and the decision outcome may or may not reflect group opinion.

Facilitated group All group members except the acting facilitator

A collaborative decision-making process is coordinated by the group leader or manager, who may act as or assign a facilitator. The group generates a collective decision outcome, and the group leader or manager abides by the group’s decision.

Empowered group All group members An independently functioning group is assigned by the group leader or manager to generate a collective decision outcome. The group leader or manager does not play any active role in the group’s decision-making process. The group may call on the leader or manager to provide clarification, direction, support, and various resources as needed.

Minority control A select subgroup A self-managing group delegates decision making to an expert sub- group or assembles a temporary task force of experts to deal with and decide on a specific issue.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 211 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

In the final step of the sensemaking process, individual or group decision makers select a primary mode of engagement. As we saw in our opening case study, however, managers and groups can switch between modes or use a blend of them. In putting together an advisory team, Molly is primarily choosing to act within the group consultation mode. At the end of the process, the team members will present their evidence and suggestions to Molly as a group. However, the final decision will be Molly’s alone, and it may or may not reflect the team’s recommendations. However, Molly has also partially empowered her team to manage its own investigations and decision-making process. She steps in only when it becomes clear that the team needs some redirection. To decide how to redirect the team, Molly engages in a two-part consultation mode—first at the individual level, and then with the group. She uses the information from these sessions to make an individual decision on how to redirect the group’s process and dynamics so the team can remain an effective resource for her primary decision-making process. So how did Molly select her modes?

Although all of the modes of engagement shown in Table 6.2 are used in a group setting, they call for varying levels of participation from group members. Some rely on a single indi- vidual to produce the decision outcome; others call for a collective decision-making process. To select a primary mode or understand when and how to shift modes, decision makers take the following conditions into account:

• Existing group structure and roles • Type of decision to be made • Available time and resources • Decision parameters and context • Implementation needs

By assessing each of these factors, decision makers can determine the best mode of engage- ment for any given situation. For example, Molly knows she will make the final decision about the work-from-home policy by herself. Modes that require a collective decision outcome are therefore not applicable to Molly’s situation. Likewise, when she’s concerned about her team’s growing dysfunction, Molly sees that some team members are not speaking their mind in the group setting. She uses both the individual and group consultation modes to avoid this dynamic and gather a comprehensive sense of what’s been causing the dysfunction. The complexity of the decision problem, its context, and its operational setting also impact mode selection. Modes involving a collective decision-making process are recommended for deci- sions that require one to consider complex factors, multiple viewpoints, and many informa- tion sources; whose consequences are far-reaching or require significant buy-in; and whose implementation will impact a wide range of individuals (Vroom, 2003). It is for these reasons that Molly originally opted to augment her decision-making process by consulting a team.

After using the situational conditions to eliminate any impractical mode, the advantages and disadvantages of the remaining modes can also be considered. As illustrated in Table 6.3, each of the six basic modes of engagement has specific benefits and drawbacks that primarily relate to group dynamics.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 212 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

Table 6.3: The pros and cons of the six basic modes of engagement

Mode of engagement Advantages Disadvantages

Command decision • Uses minimal time and resources.

• Decisions can be made very quickly without waiting on nonessential inputs.

• Can halt process loss and bolster morale if a quick, authoritative decision is needed.

• Benefits of group interaction are lost.

• Diverse KSAs are not accessed. • Member accountability and

buy-in are not developed through participation and ownership.

• Members may exhibit resentment or resistance if forced to abide by a decision they do not support

Individual consultation • Accesses diverse KSAs. • Members feel their input is

useful and desired. • Although the process takes

more time than the command decision mode, a decision outcome is achieved more quickly than modes that require collective decision making.

• Does not access collective support for information retention and processing.

• Making relevant correlations and use of diverse KSAs depends on the understanding and ability of a single person.

• Member accountability and buy-in are not developed through participation and ownership.

• There is a tendency for members to try to impress leaders or tell them what they think they want to hear, rather than express real opinions.

• Members may exhibit resentment or resistance if forced to abide by a decision they do not support.

Group consultation • Accesses diverse KSAs. • Members feel their input is

useful and desired. • Engages some benefits of group

discussion. • Although the process takes

more time than the command decision mode, a decision outcome is achieved more quickly than modes that require collective decision making.

• Member accountability and buy-in are less developed because members have no ownership over the decision outcome.

• Tends to foster competition between members who wish to be well perceived by leaders or want to promote their opinions over others.

• Conflicts may go unresolved if resolution is not deemed essential for the leader’s decision-making process.

• Members may exhibit resentment or resistance if forced to abide by a decision they would not have supported.

(continued)

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 213 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

Mode of engagement Advantages Disadvantages

Facilitated group • Accesses diverse KSAs. • Member accountability and

buy-in are developed through participation in and ownership over the decision outcome.

• Engages the benefits of group discussion.

• Facilitates member coordination, time management, constructive conflict, and conflict resolution.

• Takes more time and effort than modes that depend on individual decision making or a select subgroup’s decision- making process.

• Requires a facilitator to have group facilitation skills and the ability to detach from the group decision-making process.

Empowered group • Accesses diverse KSAs. • Member accountability and

buy-in are developed through participation in and ownership over the decision outcome.

• Engages the benefits of group discussion.

• Takes more time and effort than modes that depend on individual decision making or a select subgroup’s decision- making process.

• Process loss can occur if the group does not stay on track, fails to effectively manage time, or engages in destructive conflict, or if conflicts go unresolved.

Minority control • Requires time, effort, and coordination from a small subgroup, rather than all group members.

• Can be used to effect urgent group decisions that are complex enough to require a collective process.

• Frees other group members to perform other goal-directed activities and tasks.

• Can build trust and efficacy within the group if the decision outcome is effective.

• Buy-in and support within the group depend primarily on the degree of trust and efficacy accorded to the deciding subgroup members.

• While it allows some access to diverse KSAs, these are limited by the size of the subgroup.

• If the subgroup stalls due to conflict, the entire group may suffer process loss while it waits for the decision outcome.

• The subgroup may not represent the majority opinion of the group or may develop its own outlook that is not fully understood or supported by the group.

• Group members who are not involved in the decision-making process may not comprehensively understand the decision or its implementation.

Table 6.3: The pros and cons of the six basic modes of engagement (continued)

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 214 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

There are several key takeaways regarding decision making and mode of engagement:

• The mode of engagement should fit the specific needs of the decision process. • Decision makers can switch between modes or adopt their own unique blend. • As situational elements change, so too can the mode of engagement. • The mode of engagement selected for decisions within the decision problem can dif-

fer from the primary mode of engagement.

In many cases, selecting and organizing the mode of engagement initiates group awareness and sparks a discussion about how to accomplish decision integration. In the next section, we examine popular schemes for generating a collective outcome, the benefits and drawbacks of each, and how to use them to best advantage in group decision making.

6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome When groups make decisions, they integrate their members’ individual preferences to gener- ate a collective decision outcome. To effectively accomplish this, they need basic rules for how members will interact, voice opinions, and come to general agreement on which alternative is the best choice. A social decision scheme is a procedure or set of rules that govern the generation of a collective decision. While specific rules and procedural aspects may vary from group to group, social decision schemes tend to be based on voting and consensus. Let’s look at each of these processes.

Voting: The Majority Rule Voting is a popular method for generating collective decisions in Western culture. Votes can be taken openly (for example, members voice their opinions or register them with a show of hands) or by secret ballot (for example, members write down or register their votes via com- puter without showing them to others). In its most popular format, voting measures indi- vidual preference for each option to yield a majority preference. Whichever option gets the most individual votes becomes the collective decision outcome. This is why voting schemes are also known as majority rule. Various criteria can be used to define the winning majority, including the following:

• Absolute majority: The winning option is selected by more than 50% of the group. • Qualified majority: The winning option requires selection by a specific majority, such

as two thirds of the group. • Relative majority: The winning option reflects the most popular opinion but can be

held by more or less than 50% of the membership.

Examples of various types of majorities are shown in Figure 6.2.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 215 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Absolute Majority More than 50% of

the vote

Qualified Majority Specified majority (such

as 75%)

Relative Majority Single most

popular choice

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

Rules governing how members register their preferences can also be applied to the voting process to create variations on how individuals register their preferences. These include the following:

• Rank voting. The group assigns a preferential order to decision options, such as ranking options between 1 (most preferred) and 5 (least preferred).

• Range voting. Each option within a given numerical range is independently scored, such as between -10 and +10.

• Approval voting. Members cast equal votes for any number of preferred options. • Cumulative voting. Members assign specific weights to various options by doling out

a set number of approval points.

In each of these variations, member responses are totaled and used to assign majority prefer- ence to one of the options. If more than one option ties for the majority, another vote is held to decide between them.

The Popularity of Majority Rule Majority rule tends to be the go-to strategy for decision integration when no formal rules have been adopted, and majority opinion often holds sway even when the group’s social deci- sion scheme does not specify a majority vote (Davis, 1973, 1982; Kerr & Tindale, 2004). This intuitive tendency toward majority rule is rooted in two significant aspects of cultural condi- tioning that have persisted across societies and groups throughout history. The first dictates that the attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs that are common to the majority in any collective are considered to be the norm (Horne, 2008). This is why societal norms are both generated and empowered by the constant belief and adherence of the majority population (Chun & Dyck, 2015). When particular norms—acceptance of slavery, for example—fall out of favor to the point that this majority is challenged, then a revolution of thought and behavior can occur.

Figure 6.2: Various types of majorities

There are various ways to determine a majority when using voting to determine group decisions.

Absolute Majority More than 50% of

the vote

Qualified Majority Specified majority (such

as 75%)

Relative Majority Single most

popular choice

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 216 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

This can be dramatic and violent, as in the American Civil War, or can simply represent a quiet but sweeping cultural change, such as the shift to working and socializing online.

The second aspect of our cultural conditioning that supports our tendency toward majority rule occurs as part of our natural cycle of cognitive growth and socialization during child- hood. Despite the stereotypical parental advice that warns against following the crowd, we learn by doing just that—mimicking those around us to develop language, motor, and social skills during our formative years (Rogoff, Paradise, Arauz, Correa-Chavez, & Angelillo, 2003). This informs the way we respond to new conditions and beliefs for the rest of our lives, set- ting up an intuitive expectation that we can get a basic sense for what is accepted, or “right,” by taking cues from the majority (Suls & Wheeler, 2000).

Despite our intuitive tendency to use this method, majority rule is not always advantageous to group decision making. Next, we examine the advantages and disadvantages of majority rule and when groups should use it.

Using Majority Rule to Best Advantage Voting is commonly associated with generating member buy-in to a decision outcome, due to the apparent democracy of the majority rule approach. In most cases, however, this turns out to be a misperception. Majority rule can overwhelm important perspectives held by a few. Critical information and viewpoints held by group minorities are not always heard or given due consideration by the rest of the group. Minority members can harbor resentment if they feel they have been disregarded or shut out of the decision-making process. They may retaliate by hindering decision implementation, either by not participating or by withhold- ing necessary resources. Anxiety over being viewed as a dissenting minority can also skew the decision-making process if members choose to simply go along with the group majority, rather than raising unpopular opinions or concerns. We saw something similar happen in the case study, when Alicia, perceiving herself as a lone and unsupported dissenter, chose not to voice any contrary opinions or concerns. Secret ballots are sometimes used to mitigate this problem. However, the best fix for all of these issues is to instill a climate of cooperation and communicative norms that view diverse information, viewpoint sharing, and debate as posi- tive elements in the decision-making process.

The real advantages of majority rule are that it provides a relatively quick and efficient reso- lution; can be used within large groups, where achieving collective agreement may take too long; and is a familiar and easily understood method of decision integration. For the most part, social decision schemes that feature majority rule are advantageous when the following conditions are present:

• Large groups in which it is impractical for each member to actively participate in group discussion. In such cases, a large portion of the group becomes a “listening public” that devises individual preferences based on observing presentations from speakers who are chosen to represent different viewpoints or sides of an issue (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006).

• Time-scarce decision problems, where the decision outcome is definitively correct and relevant information is easily accessible and/or commonly held.

• Failure to reach agreement on a collective decision outcome by the required deadline after knowledge has been comprehensively shared and the decision options have been critically analyzed.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 217 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

When these conditions are in effect, majority rule offers a practical solution for achieving relatively efficient and effective group decisions (Lawless, Whitton, & Poppeliers, 2008). Effective decision making requires that the decision outcome is produced in a timely manner and within designated time constraints. However, it also requires that the outcome is able to garner support and be successfully implemented. The fact that voting can occur at any time and without regard to how informed the participants are, to what degree they have engaged in critical analysis, to what extent they have been exposed to contrasting information and viewpoints, or how many members are in agreement, makes it ill-advised for conditions in which collective comprehension, acceptance, and support for implementation are prime fac- tors. If these are major considerations in the decision-making process, the group would better served if it acted toward building consensus. We examine this scheme next.

Consensus: Undivided Agreement At its root, the group decision-making process is aimed at building consensus. When groups discuss and debate various options, the underlying understanding is that members are trying to reach an acceptable agreement on which option should be selected. In consensus building, group members strive for overwhelming agreement, solidarity in sentiment and belief, and commitment to supporting a collaborative solution or collective judgment (Susskind & Crui- kshank, 2006). There are three major points worth remembering about quality consensus building:

1. Consensus need not be absolute. In research settings, consensus equals zero dissent; but in the real world relative consensus is close enough. What it does require is unanimous acceptance, wherein members who maintain reservations can agree to support the collective decision outcome and at least give it a chance.

2. Consensus building should be informative. Group members should walk away with a mutual understanding of the decision context, options, and decision outcome, as well as what that outcome entails and its impacts on their time, interests, and resources.

3. Participants should strive for mutual satisfaction and gain. Consensus building should not be a competitive process, but one in which all members work collaboratively toward a decision outcome that works for everyone.

Consensus building begins the moment the group begins to discuss the decision problem. Group members then engage in inquiry-based advocacy and discussion until a collective deci- sion outcome is achieved (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). When we advocate a point of view, we present our position and the reasoning supporting it. In inquiry-based advo- cacy, two or more opposing positions are presented in order to investigate an option or issue; the goal is to establish a framework of relevant information and reasoning needed to make an informed judgment regarding the best course of action. The fact that consensus requires each option to be thoroughly discussed until the group agrees on a collective decision repre- sents both the primary benefit and major drawback of consensus schemes. On the plus side, consensus is generally associated with higher quality decisions, greater satisfaction with the process, and increased comprehension and support of the collective decision outcome (John- son & Johnson, 2013). On the downside, consensus building is often perceived as too time- consuming and difficult or as requiring negative win–lose and lose–lose compromises, where either one party gains while the other loses or both parties are unsatisfied with the outcome (Susskind, 2012). In reality, these negative outcomes are often generated by members who

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 218 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

anticipate problems in the process (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006). Let’s look at how these potential drawbacks can be overcome.

Negative Perceptions of Consensus Consensus building is too time-consuming and difficult. In contrast to voting, the point of con- sensus is to come as close as possible to satisfying everyone’s interests and concerns (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006). Consensus building necessarily requires discussion and time—to exam- ine decision options, explore diverse knowledge, and hear a variety of viewpoints—before coming to a conclusion that can be reasonably supported by all, even if group members do not universally agree. Consensus building is founded on the idea that members are mutually accountable for participating in and governing their process. They are responsible for shar- ing information and viewpoints and for listening as others do so. Collectively generating the group’s timetable, and feeling ownership over it, builds commitment and awareness of time sensitivity. It also helps the group focus on progressing through the consensus-building pro- cess in a timely manner.

Mutual accountability is also important for moving away from diverse preferences and toward a convergence of viewpoints. Conflicting opinions are only a problem if group members allow their priorities to shift from their collective purpose—generating a quality decision—to the more self-serving mission of “winning” the discussion. While it takes effort to address every- one’s concerns and find or construct a decision outcome that satisfies most, if group members maintain mutual accountability for collaborative effort toward a group decision, they will find ways to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution (Susskind, 2012). This tends to involve some compromising—another area of anxiety for those who harbor doubts about the efficacy of consensus.

Consensus requires win–lose or lose–lose compromising. Some believe that any decision reached by consensus must involve a compromise that leaves some or all unsatisfied. However, this idea is based on the false assumption that one viewpoint must conquer the others to generate a quality decision. Consensus builders should see themselves as collaboratively solving the decision problem, where achieving a well-considered agreement that maximizes joint gains is part of the solution. The assumption that compromising means “losing out” in some way is furthered by an unconscious expectation that majority opinion will prevail and that whoever achieves the majority influence will “win” the decision.

While group decisions tend to lean toward the majority view, this does not mean that group members must work against each other to achieve an outcome. In fact, better quality deci- sions tend to result from working together to select or construct a decision option that rep- resents a win–win for all members of the group. In consensus building, a win–win outcome means settling on an option or course of action that is good for most, without sacrificing any- one’s basic interests. People often confuse their position with their interests, and this is mainly what drives the perception of compromising as a win–lose or lose–lose process (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006).

A position is a strongly held attitude or viewpoint regarding a decision option or course of action. Stating one’s position can involve declaring an individual preference, support for, or opposition to preferences declared by other members. In decision problems in which one option is definitively correct, position is primarily founded on factual evidence. However,

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 219 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

complex decision problems—those most commonly handled by groups—often involve inter- pretative determinations of right, wrong, or best options. In such cases, our interests, or desires concerning the decision process and outcome, become personal reasons for holding a position we view as the best (or only) avenue. This is at play in U.S. presidential elections, for example, when people vote for candidates whose platform and agenda seem to support their personal interests—whether these are represented by health care reforms, ecological concerns, tax cuts, civil rights, or the economy. Effecting win–win compromise in consensus building begins with understanding the basic interests that motivate each group member and acknowledging that it is possible to find or construct an option that maintains significant interests, even if members cannot maintain their original position.

Using Consensus to Best Advantage Building consensus within a group enhances the quality of a decision, no matter what social decision scheme is used. Fostering consensus before a vote can effectively combine advan- tages from both schemes. The voting process can take place before an overwhelming consen- sus is reached, moving the group more quickly toward resolution. Having explored all of the options, however, the membership will be able to more effectively evaluate decision options, resulting in higher quality decisions. Group members go into the vote better informed and with an increased likelihood of a large majority win. The entire process results in greater overall satisfaction with the decision because (a) the winning majority is gratified with their outcome; and (b) even though they did not win, the losing minorities feel their views have been heard and considered. To facilitate quality decisions using the consensus process, group members should do the following:

• State individual preferences and supportive reasoning as clearly and accurately as possible (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995).

• Seek out and investigate differences in viewpoint and opinion (Agrawal, 2012). • Critically analyze and evaluate each position taken—including preferred options. • Be open to changing preferences but be swayed by sound, supportive reasoning

(Johnson, Johnson, & Tjosvold, 2006). • Agree to abide by a relative consensus if absolute agreement is unobtainable. • Ensure group discussion includes what a specific outcome entails and its impacts on

members’ time, interests, and resources (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006). • Stay focused on the collective goal—making a quality decision—rather than getting

sidetracked by the desire to win in discussion or debate. • Move through the process with a win–win mentality—finding solutions that main-

tain everyone’s important interests is often a matter of believing we can and acting accordingly (Susskind, 2012).

• Commit to a collectively established timetable, rather than passively following an open-ended time frame or deadline set by nonparticipants (Korsgaard et al., 2003).

• Differentiate between members’ positions and interests and explore how various options can maintain members’ interests even if their position must change (Suss- kind & Cruikshank, 2006).

Consensus can depend on members’ ability to motivate and maintain relevant knowledge sharing and constructive conflict. It is also contingent on their ability to listen to one another and satisfactorily resolve differences of opinion. If group members are unable or unwilling

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 220 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

to share relevant knowledge and opinions, or if situational or social factors pressure them to rush toward consensus, they may hold back dissenting information or viewpoints and simply go with the majority opinion (Kameda, Takezawa, Tindale, & Smith, 2002). In the next section, we examine how information sharing and social influence critically affect the quality of group decisions.

6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence Effective decision making requires that a decision outcome is of high quality and based on sound reasoning and informed process. In group decision making, decision quality directly correlates to the quality of two critical elements: information exchange between group mem- bers and critical analysis of the options. These elements are crucially linked. The amount and accuracy of decision-relevant information that is available and put to use by group mem- bers profoundly impacts their ability to critically analyze options. Information that is either unshared or distorted due to bias damages a group’s ability to make effective choices. Deci- sion quality is also affected by social influence, or the impact of shared information, ideas, and viewpoints on our own. Social influence is a major factor in motivating—or demotivat- ing—critical analysis of decision options. In this section, we’ll examine how the quality of information exchange and social influence within the group impacts its decision process. Let’s begin with how biases limit the amount and quality of the information group members depend on to make an effective decision.

The Limiting Effects of Bias The capacity to pool diverse knowledge and expertise is a prime factor underlying the expec- tation that groups are better equipped to deal with complex decisions than individuals. Com- mittees, for example, are often composed of members who have diverse backgrounds and are brought together for the express purpose of accessing a wider range of information to address a complex problem. However, the benefits of diverse KSAs can be severely limited when the quality of information exchange is damaged as a result of bias in group discussion. The following sections outline the two biases most common and detrimental to group discus- sion and offer strategies to mitigate their impact on group performance.

The Common Knowledge Effect Despite the fact that group decision making’s value is rooted in the sharing of diverse knowl- edge and expertise, group members often fail to exchange and discuss unique information, or the knowledge and data that is only accessible to or held by select individuals. Instead, they tend to focus on shared information, or information that is easily accessed and col- lectively held (Schulz-Hardt, Jochims, & Frey, 2002). The tendency to bias discussions toward shared information is known as the common knowledge effect (Gigone & Hastie, 1993). The common knowledge effect can seriously damage group effectiveness by negating one of the primary benefits of group interaction: access to diverse information. So what causes the common knowledge effect?

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 221 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

There are two significant factors that contribute to the common knowledge effect:

• The number of people in possession of the knowledge. As the number of people who possess specific, shared information increases, so does the likelihood of it being mentioned, repeated, remembered, and discussed. Thus, information shared by all members tends to be more prevalent in group discussion than information known only to a few; and partially shared information is more likely to be discussed than unique information.

• The influence of group norms and leadership. Group norms can dictate the way mem- bers communicate regarding a decision problem. They can also influence expecta- tions for and responses to knowledge sharing and the underlying purpose guiding decision-making discussions (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001). Groups (or group leaders) that habitually prize rapid decision resolution or group harmony may explicitly or implicitly discourage unique knowledge sharing because unique infor- mation is more likely to prolong discussion and stimulate conflict or debate (Schol- ten, Van Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De Drue, 2007).

Next, we’ll take a look at another limiting bias that can seriously damage our ability to criti- cally evaluate decision options and effect a quality decision.

Dealing With Confirmation Bias During discussions, group members have a natural tendency to focus on their own prefer- ences because they are generally most interested in advocating these to the group (Laughlin, 1980; Stasser & Titus, 1985). Sometimes the desire to uphold a particular position overrides members’ motivation to critically evaluate decision options, and they unintentionally engage in selective perception. The tendency to solely perceive, acquire, and utilize information that confirms (rather than contests) preexisting preferences, ideas, and beliefs is known as confirmation bias (Allahverdyan & Galstyan, 2014). These tendencies reflect the positions and interests held by individual group members.

If group members enter into a discussion with set positions and interests, they will naturally try to further these through group discussion by focusing on sharing and acquiring infor- mation that supports their viewpoint and influences others (Forsyth, 2010). Members who prioritize a particular agenda over others no matter what will use reasoning distorted by confirmation bias to support their position. If these agenda pushers are in a majority, or are particularly persuasive, the entire group may selectively gather data to support conclusions it has reached in advance and overlook potential downsides. For example, a new product design may capture the design team’s imagination; it is likely to then share that excitement with the marketing and production teams. All of these groups may end up downplaying the costs of production and marketing without due consideration because they are instead focused on the product’s potential popularity.

On the personal level, interests can encompass more than what seems obviously relevant to the decision process. While group members may strive toward an optimal decision outcome, an individual’s best-case scenario may include factors that are unknown or unimportant to anyone else. For example, in choosing between relatively equal candidates for promotion to division manager, group members may favor one over the others based on personal interests such as relational connections, positive or negative experience with a particular individual, or

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 222 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

approval of managerial strategy and proposed agenda. Group members may also selectively share information or use it to confirm others’ viewpoints as a way to tacitly offer or withhold support and approval, secure relational bonds, and develop or compete for status within the group (Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004).

Next, we look at strategies for overcoming these limiting biases and the negative effects they can have on group discussion.

Mitigating Limiting Biases The common knowledge effect is so consistently present in studies of group dynamics that it would be foolish to say it can be eradicated (Hunton, 2001). Rather, it seems to be a natu- ral phenomenon of social interaction. Acknowledging and discussing shared information is a natural tactic for recognizing similar others, comparing and confirming attitudes and beliefs, and creating or maintaining social bonds (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Nevertheless, there are ways to mitigate the impact of the common knowledge effect and other limiting tendencies such as the confirmation bias.

The presence of positive norms regarding member diversity, information sharing, construc- tive criticism, and critical analysis in group problem solving and discussion tends to diminish both the common knowledge effect and confirmation bias in group interactions (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Societal norms regarding expert authority can also impact information sharing. Group members are more likely to expect the experts among them to share unique informa- tion and will tend to give the input and opinions of experts more weight than contributions from nonexpert group members (Stasser, Vaughan, & Stewart, 2000; Franz & Larson, 2002).

Specific task features reduce the impact of these biases. Joint information seeking can intro- duce decision-relevant knowledge across the group and encourage newly acquired informa- tion to rapidly shift in status from unique to shared. Collective recall sessions—in which group member sum up what they have learned so far—can also have a positive effect on knowl- edge sharing, particularly when planned in advance. Group members who anticipate a col- lective recall session are consistently more likely to share unique information because they (a) assume this expectation regarding member roles during the session and (b) want to be perceived as capable and valuable to the group (Stasser et al., 2000; Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Ranking decision options in order of preference in the initial stages of group discussion also facilitates knowledge sharing, reduces the common knowledge effect, and helps mitigate members’ tendency to focus exclusively on their own preferences and distort supportive rea- soning with confirmation bias (Laughlin, 1980; Stasser & Titus, 1985; Hollingshead, 1996).

The most effective strategy so far is to simply educate group members on these negative ten- dencies and the impact they can have on the quality and effectiveness of group process and decision making (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Raising awareness and encouraging group mem- bers to actively seek out unique information, invite constructive criticism, and welcome con- trasting viewpoints have proved to be successful mitigation techniques (Hunton, 2001). Addi- tionally, there are several useful guidelines for information exchange in group discussion:

• Use visuals. Unique information is more likely to be remembered when knowledge sharing is accompanied by pictures (Stewart & Stewart, 2001).

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 223 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

• Strive for a balanced tone. Whether it enters the discussion as unique or common knowledge, negative information gets more discussion time than positive informa- tion (Stewart, 1998).

• Raise awareness of member diversity. Group members who know and expect oth- ers to have diverse knowledge and perspectives tend to more actively seek out and share unique information (Hightower & Sayeed, 1995; Schittekatte, 1996; Stasser & Titus, 1987).

• Incorporate technology. Access to computers, digital devices, and online data dur- ing discussions can help new, decision-relevant information be jointly acquired and considered (Savadori, Van Swol, & Sniezek, 2001; Lavery, Franz, Winquist, & Larson, 1999).

Part of our ability to effectively evaluate options depends on the amount and accuracy of deci- sion-relevant information we can acquire—the rest depends on how we use that information. In group decision making this is largely determined by social influence in group discussion. Next, we examine how social influence affects how we critically analyze decision options— and in doing so, significantly impacts decision quality.

Group Discussion and Social Influence In group decision making, members share information and pool KSAs to critically analyze and evaluate decision options. Once the decision problem has been framed, group discussion tends to follow a basic pattern: Members exchange prediscussion preferences, then support those preferences by clarifying their reasoning to the group (Boster & Mayer, 1984; Dennis, 1996; Pavitt, 2014). Individual preferences reflect the options each person perceives as the most situationally appropriate, rationally and/or intuitively reasonable, and beneficial to personal and/or collective interests (Pavitt, 2014). Group members base their prediscussion preferences on their stock of decision-relevant information, personal interests, and biases. Post-discussion preferences may or may not differ as a result of social influence, which can either change or reinforce initial preferences for options.

There are three major processes of social influence at work in decision-making discussions: social comparison, conformity, and argumentation.

Social comparison is a type of social influence that involves evaluating one’s own behavior, opinions, knowledge, attributes, abilities, and worth in relation to others (Festinger, 1954). When it comes to opinion (Suls & Wheeler, 2000), individuals tend to use social comparison to assess preferences (do I like the company’s new diversity training policy?); assess belief (is it true that we need diversity training?); and predict preferences (will I like the diversity train- ing?). Social comparison leads group members to be influenced by one another’s preferences.

Conformity is a type of social influence that involves changing one’s behavior, attitude, or beliefs in order to gain or maintain social acceptance. Although conformity can foster real change, the tendency in group decision making is to simply pay “lip service” to the majority view, rather than experience an actual change of individual preference (Pavitt, 2014). Confor- mity leads group members to voice the ideas, viewpoints, and preferences they believe will engender acceptance and approval from their group.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 224 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

Argumentation is a type of social influence that involves exchanging, analyzing, and debat- ing conflicting information and viewpoints. Although we tend to think of argumentation as a bad thing, it can be very beneficial to group process. Voicing conflicting viewpoints is critical to informed decision making, both in motivating comprehensive analysis and validating the group’s choice (Propp, 1997; Schulz-Hardt, Frey, Lu?thgens, & Moscovici, 2000). Argumenta- tion leads group members to share and discuss decision-relevant knowledge, critically ana- lyze and evaluate all options, and be influenced by shared knowledge and discussion.

In many ways, social comparison and conformity work together—often to inhibit critical thinking—while argumentation tends to mitigate these negative effects. In this section, we examine the elements of social influence that determine a group’s capacity to critically evalu- ate decision options, beginning with the dynamic interrelationship between social compari- son and conformity.

Social Comparison and Conformity In group work, critical thinking can sometimes take a backseat to what essentially becomes a popularity contest between options—and at times, between members themselves (Pavitt, 2014). The exchange of preferences initiates comparison and the potential to conform to pref- erences held by authorities within the group. Authority, in this case, is largely a matter of col- lective perception. It can be attached to personal or positional status or to the group majority.

Status Authority As discussed in Chapter 4, status refers to a formally or informally granted social ranking. Individuals perceived as high status are more likely to contribute during discussions, their contributions are more likely to be accepted, and they are more likely to inspire conformity within the group (Kirchler & Davis, 1986; Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995). Leaders can hold a significant amount of positional (and possibly personal) status and should care- fully consider its impact on group discussion (Peterson, 1977). This is particularly important, given leaders’ potential to (a) encourage the free exchange of ideas and discussion of dissent- ing viewpoints and (b) advocate a preferred position or proposal and favor information and viewpoints that support this. For instance, overly directive leaders tend to perform poorly in the first area and well in the second, resulting in less information exchange and critical evalu- ation and more conformity to the leaders’ desires regarding the outcome (Larson, Foster- Fisherman, & Franz, 1998; Pavitt, 2014).

Experts can have status as well, particularly regarding issues that directly involve their area of expertise. Similar to the leadership dynamics outlined above, perceived expertise can influ- ence member opinion and inspire conformity within the group (Berger et al., 1977; Franz & Larson, 2002). When we think of expertise, we typically associate it with positional status. However, in some ways expertise can be an emergent quality, as perceived expertise does not always depend on level of actual knowledge or designated title. Demonstrated competence, relevant knowledge, and past experience can be perceived as expertise, and frequent partici- pation in discussion can heighten credibility and influence within the group if that participa- tion is perceived as valuable (Kameda, Ohtsubo, & Takezawa, 1997; Weisband, 1992). This can establish a cycle of increasing influence within the group, as perceived expertise increases personal status. Moreover, high-status people talk more, are less susceptible to the common knowledge effect, and are more likely to share unique information, thereby confirming their

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 225 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

expert value to the discussion (Wittenbaum, 1998, 2000; Savadori et al., 2001). Group majori- ties, which we discuss next, also have significant authority and influence within the group.

Majority Authority Social comparison and conformity also influence how we perceive and react to group major- ity. As noted earlier in the chapter, we are culturally conditioned to view the majority opinion as the norm and to expect that going against that norm will garner negative reactions from our peers. This commonly leads group members to mistake the majority viewpoint for the “right choice” (Maier, 1963, 1999). The desire to fit in often supersedes any doubts a member may have about the majority opinion (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996; Pavitt, 2014). Social pressure is a major force for conformity, as the desire for approval and/or fear of rejec- tion tends to silence dissenting viewpoints and encourage false consensus (Maier, 1999).

The majority viewpoint tends to gain dominance in discussion based on the simple fact that there are more people advocating it. Cautious of the potentially negative social consequences, members who perceive themselves as holding a minority opinion are also less likely to share information and viewpoints, which further minimizes their ability to influence the group (Noelle-Neumann, 1993). Strength in numbers works for minorities too, however. Large minorities are less willing to conform to majority opinion (Asch, 1951; Brandstetter et al., 2014), and they hold greater influence within the group than smaller minorities—to a point. The optimal size for minority influence within the group seems to be approximately half the size of the group majority (Pavitt, 2014). As the size difference between group majority and minority diminishes below that 2:1 ratio, the tendency to influence each other is superseded by competition and a tendency to retrench and deadlock. Minority influence is more effective when dealing with demonstrable support (such as factual evidence) rather than judgments based on personal opinion (Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994). The opinion of a group expert, for example, is given more weight than others in discussion, and if that opinion is backed up by factual evidence, a single expert can effectively influence or overturn a favored majority view.

Any obvious majority within the group will trigger comparison and invite conformity, though the relative strength of its influence depends on the size of the majority. Majority influence is determined by four basic factors:

1. Assumption that the majority is correct 2. Fear of consequence for dissent 3. Desire to gain or maintain social acceptance 4. Dominance of the majority viewpoint in discussion

Time pressure can also lead group members to curtail or rush through critical analysis, con- centrating instead on voicing and comparing individual preferences and responding to con- flicting views with pressure to conform to the majority, rather than giving them due consid- eration (Pavitt, 2014; Kelly & Loving, 2003). Argumentation is the antidote to conformity in group decision making.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 226 8/19/16 9:35 AM

A B C

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

Decision Making and Argumentation Argumentation comes into play when members with conflicting viewpoints begin to clar- ify the reasoning behind their preferences and support their position with relevant infor- mation (Kaplan & Miller, 1987; Pavitt & Aloia, 2009). This is a critical factor in promoting the exchange and discussion of decision-relevant information, critical analysis, and mutual influence by reasoning. Group members who find themselves unanimously leaning toward one option early in the discussion are less likely to consider other options—forgoing any real critical analysis of the available choices (Pavitt & Aloia, 2009; Pavitt, 1994, 2014). Dis- senting opinions motivate the exchange of information and critical analysis of all decision options, including the one preferred by the majority of group members (Brodbeck, Kerschre- iter, Mojzisch, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2002; Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Mojzisch, Kerschreiter, & Frey, 2006).

Argumentation is fueled by controversy, or the conflict that arises when the ideas, infor- mation, position, and interests held by one individual seem incompatible with those held by another (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Decisions are by nature subject to controversy, as

Concepts in Action: Staking Correctness on Majority Opinion In a famous experiment, Asch (1951) studied the conditions under which indi- viduals yielded to or defied the majority in a group. He asked subjects to compare and contrast a line drawn in one box to three lines drawn in a second box (see Figure 6.3). It was rather obvious that line B was most comparable in length to the reference line.

When individuals undertook this test alone, most of them selected the cor- rect answer. However, when they were placed in a group (members of whom were covert plants by the experimenter), subjects’ judgment was affected by the opinions of their peers. When a signifi- cant number of planted group members selected the wrong line—say, line A— subjects were much more likely to go along with that judgment if they were asked to pick last, after hearing the judgment of their peers. The larger the majority, the stronger the effect.

Critical-Thinking Question 1. Recall and describe an instance in which your evaluation and judgment did not align

with majority opinion. Did you stand by your own judgment or go along with majority rule? Using the concepts from this section, analyze the social dynamics at work during that event, how they affected your decision-making process, and the group’s response to your choice.

Figure 6.3: The Asch experiment

Source: Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

A B C

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 227 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

decision options are critically examined and compared. Even if all group members begin with a single preference, deliberate controversy in the form of structured, inquiry-based advocacy will help them make an informed decision. It can also confirm that their preferred option is the best choice or influence them to select another. Argumentation is key to countering confirmation bias and weakening the common knowledge effect, as well as mitigating the negative influence that social comparison and conformity can have. The primary concern regarding argumentation is in the potential for conflict to generate negative interpersonal dynamics between group members. Since these negative interactions can seriously damage member relations and the ability to work effectively, it is imperative to maintain constructive controversy.

Constructive controversy describes the process of using structured and relevant conflict to stimulate the exchange of information and ideas; foster creativity; and enable critical analy- sis, problem solving, and evaluation (Vollmer & Seyr, 2013). The basic assumption underlying this process is that being exposed to conflicting viewpoints and reasoning incites curiosity and uncertainty, which unlocks closed perspectives and fosters a better reasoning process (Johnson et al., 2006). Above all, constructive controversy should be viewed as a learning process in which active, focused, and informed debate between interested parties assists the reasoning and evaluation process (Mitroff, 1982; Johnson et al., 2006).

There are many ways to structure inquiry-based advocacy. Of these, dialectic inquiry and devil’s advocacy are perhaps most commonly successful. Dialectic inquiry involves directly comparing the reasoning behind positions that are diametrically opposed, meaning that their assumptions and recommendations are not just opposing, but directly opposite. This method is based on the premise that comparing and contrasting two diametrically opposed positions results in higher quality decisions, as members evaluate the relative value of each position in relation to the other. A devil’s advocate is someone whose primary task is to criticize a given proposal or set of proposals. Devil’s advocacy occurs when an individual or subgroup takes on the role of devil’s advocate to methodically critique the reasoning attached to a particu- lar position, generate counterarguments, and identify any inherent issues and weaknesses (Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002).

What’s the difference between these two methods? Dialectic inquiry involves a contest between two different and opposite viewpoints. In devil’s advocacy, one position is advocated, then critiqued to reveal issues and weaknesses in the reasoning supporting it. In compar- ing the two, researchers essentially found that while devil’s advocacy is better at revealing potential problems and faulty reasoning, it reveals these negatives without offering possible solutions or alternatives (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). Dialectic inquiry, on the other hand, provides more information and stimulation for alternative options but has a greater potential to divide, rather than decide, group preference if both positions are well presented and argued. Nonetheless, both dialectic inquiry and devil’s advocacy consistently foster bet- ter informed, higher quality decision outcomes than those derived from unstructured argu- mentation processes.

Using structured methods for inquiry-based advocacy is a very specific way to facilitate con- structive controversy, but there are some more general guidelines that have critical value as well. Decision-making groups are more likely to avoid dysfunctional conflict and engage in constructive controversy when care is taken to do the following:

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 228 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

• Construct and maintain positive member relations using interpersonal communica- tion and relations skills, as outlined in Chapter 3 (Chen, Tjosvold, & Wu, 2008).

• Foster norms conducive to constructive controversy and maintain a climate of coop- eration within the group (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006; Vollmer & Seyr, 2013).

• Engage persuasive rather than coercive tactics, such as reasoned argumentation rather than social pressure (Tjosvold & Sun, 2001).

• Be respectful and not engage in personal attacks (Tjosvold, Hui, & Sun, 2004). • Express mutual accountability and cooperation toward a quality outcome (Tjosvold,

1988).

Next, we examine the connection between social influence processes and dysfunctional decision-making dynamics that can severely damage group process, relations, and decision- making quality.

6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making We’ve examined how discussion bias and social influence can affect the quality of group decision-making process and outcome at the basic level. Taken on their own, most of the negative dynamics examined so far are only mildly dysfunctional. While they impair critical thinking in decision making, they do not completely destroy it. However, when social influ- ence becomes detached from critical thinking and rational reasoning, it can lead to major dysfunction that can seriously damage group efficacy and process. This section examines how and why major dysfunction occurs within the group decision-making process. We also explore how it results in group polarization, pluralistic ignorance, and groupthink.

Group Polarization In the 1960s the study of group dynamics began to include experiments featuring group deci- sion making and risk. Researchers were astounded when a series of studies (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1962; Kogan & Wallach, 1967; Stoner, 1961, 1968) revealed that group discussion resulted in a final choice that was more risky than the average of members’ choices before deliberation. Experimenters measured the amount of risk deemed acceptable by participants using the Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire, a self-assessment form that presented partici- pants with a series of scenarios involving risky ventures that could potentially yield beneficial results. It asked them to indicate how high the odds of success would need to be before they would recommend taking the chance. Participants filled out the forms individually, indicating their prediscussion preferences, then filled them out again after the group interacted. Some studies focused on the change in individual preferences after a set period of discussion (Kogan & Wallach, 1967; Wallach et al., 1962), while others required group consensus before noting the results (Marquis, 1962; Stoner, 1968). Figure 6.4 shows an example of the question format used in the Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 229 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Mr. A, a software developer who is married and has two children, has worked for

a large electronics corporation since graduating from college 10 years ago. His

current position is very secure, and he receives a modest but adequate salary

and a generous pension benefit upon retirement. However, it is unlikely that his

salary will increase much before he retires. While attending a convention, Mr. A

connects with the owners of a small, newly founded company with a highly

uncertain future. They enjoy Mr. A’s company, are impressed by his knowledge

and intelligence, and offer him a job. The position would not only pay more to

start, but also offer the possibility of a profitable share in ownership if the

company survives the competitive market.

Imagine you are advising Mr. A. Listed below are several probabilities or odds regarding the new company’s likelihood of proving financially sound. Please check the lowest probability that you would consider it acceptable for Mr. A to take the new job.

____The chances are 1 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 3 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 5 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 7 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 9 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____ Mr. A should not take the new job no matter what the probabilities.

Group Behavior Organizations

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

The studies revealed that after group discussion, both individual preferences and group con- sensus shifted toward greater risk taking (Kogan & Wallach, 1967; Stoner, 1968). This phe- nomenon was replicated in studies around the world with a wide variety of participants and was initially known as the risky-shift effect (Pruitt, 1971; Lamm & Myers, 1978). However, this label proved incomplete. As the studies progressed, researchers observed that groups could also experience conservative shifts and that group discussion could act to either intensify or temper members’ attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, values, and judgments (Myers, 1982). For example, one study found that when a group of strongly prejudiced members discussed racial issues, their prejudice got stronger, while a group of only mildly prejudiced individuals ended their discussion less prejudiced than when they began it (Myers & Bishop, 1970).

The idea of risky and conservative shifts was subsumed into a larger, more general theory sug- gesting that group discussion can influence members to adopt a more extreme position than they held beforehand (Myers & Lamm, 1976). The entire phenomenon was renamed group

Figure 6.4: Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire—sample question

Which odds would you pick?

Source: Adapted from Marquis, D. G. (1962). Individual responsibility and group decisions involving risk. Industrial Management Review, 3(2), 8–23.