draft assistance

Decision Making

METHODS OF DECISION MAKING

Groups can use a variety of ways to make decisions, from flipping a coin to thoughtful discussion followed by a vote in which the majority wins. Seven of the major methods of group decision making are discussed in this chapter. Each decision-making method has its uses and is appropriate under certain circumstances. Each also has its particular consequences for the group’s future operation. An effective group member understands each method of decision making well enough to choose the method that best suits the following conditions:

1. The type of decision to be made 2. The amount of time and resources available 3. The history of the group 4. The nature of the task being worked on 5. The kind of climate the group wishes to establish 6. The type of setting in which the group is working

Table 1 lists the advantages and disadvantages of the seven decision-making methods discussed in this section.

Method 1: Decision by Authority Without Group Discussion

In this method the designated leader makes all the decisions without consulting the group members in any way. This method is quite common in organizations. It is an efficient method, as it takes a short time to execute, but it is not very effective. Even if the designated leader is a good listener who sorts out the correct information on which to base a decision, it is still the group members who have to act on the decision. They may not understand what the decision is or how they are supposed to implement it; they may disagree with the decision and not want to implement it; and, even if they agree with the decision, they may lack commitment to implementing the decision. Under this method, how well the decision is implemented is particularly crucial.

Method 2: Decision by Expert

Group decisions can be made by letting the most expert member in the group decide what the group should do. The procedure for this method is to select the expert, let him or her consider the issues, and then have that person tell the group what the decision is. The group does not discuss the issue.

A major problem with this method is determining which member has the most expertise. On most complex issues, individuals disagree as to what the best approach is, and this makes it difficult for them to identify the expert among them. Personal popularity and the amount of power a person has over the group members often inter- fere with the selection of the most expert member. The classic illustration of this point is the story of the general with a college education and several captains with Ph.D.s in engineering discussing how a bridge should be built. Needless to say, the general designs the bridge, simply because he has the most power. Individuals with a great

Decision Making

TABLE 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Decision-Making Methods

METHOD OF DECISION MAKING DISADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES

1. Decision by authority without discussion

One person is not a good resource for every decision; advantages of group interaction are lost; no commitment to implement the decision is developed among other group members; resentment and disagreement may result in sabotage and deterioration of group effectiveness; resources of other members are not used.

Applies more to administrative needs; useful for simple, routine decisions; should be used when very little time is available to make the decision, when group members expect the designated leader to make the decision, and when group members lack the skills and information to make the decision any other way.

2. Expert member It is difficult to determine who the expert is; no commitment to implement the decision is built; advantages of group interaction are lost; resentment and disagreement may result in sabotage and deterioration of group effectiveness; resources of other members are not used.

Useful when the expertise of one person is so far superior to that of all other group members that little is to be gained by discussion; should be used when little membership action is needed to implement the decision.

3. Average of members’ opinions

There is not enough interaction among group members for them to gain from each other’s resources and from the benefits of group discussion; no commitment to implement the decision is built; unresolved conflict and controversy may damage group effectiveness in the future.

Useful when it is difficult to get group members together to talk, when the decision is so urgent that there is no time for group discussion, when member commitment is not necessary for implementing the decision, and when group members lack the skills and information to make the decision any other way; applicable to simple, routine decisions.

4. Decision by authority after discussion

Does not develop commitment to implement the decision; does not resolve the controversies and conflicts among group members; tends to create situations in which group members either compete to impress the designated leader or tell the leader what they think he or she wants to hear.

Uses the resources of the group members more than previous methods; gains some of the benefits of group discussion.

5. Minority control Does not utilize the resources of many group members; does not establish widespread commitment to implement the decision; unresolved conflict and controversy may damage future group effectiveness; not much benefit from group interaction.

Can be used when not everyone can meet to make a decision, when the group is under such time pressure that it must delegate responsibility to a committee, when only a few members have any relevant resources, and when broad member commitment is not needed to implement the decision; useful for simple, routine decisions.

(continued)

Decision Making

METHOD OF DECISION MAKING DISADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES

6. Majority control Usually leaves an alienated minority, which damages future group effectiveness; relevant resources of many group members may be lost; full commitment to implement the decision is absent; full benefit of group interaction is not obtained.

Can be used when there is not sufficient time for decision by consensus or when the decision is not so important that consensus needs to be used and when complete member commitment is not necessary for implementing the decision; closes discussion on issues that are not highly important for the group.

7. Consensus Takes a great deal of time and psychological energy and a high level of member skill; time pressure must be minimal, and there must be no emergency in progress.

Produces an innovative, creative, and high-quality decision; elicits commitment by all members to implement the decision; uses the resources of all members; the future decision-making ability of the group is enhanced; useful in making serious, important, and complex decisions to which all members are to be committed.

TABLE 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Decision-Making Methods (Continued)

deal of power are notorious for overestimating their expertise while underestimating the expertise of others. Unless there is a clear and effective way to determine who the expert is, this method does not work very well. Moreover, it too fails to involve group members, which affects the implementation of the decision.

Method 3: Decision by Averaging Individuals’ Opinions

This method consists of separately asking each group member his or her opinion and then averaging the results. When the chair of a group, for example, calls each member on the telephone, asks what the member’s opinion is, and then takes the most popular opinion as the group’s decision, the chair is using the averaging method. This method is similar to majority voting, except that the group’s decision may be determined by less than 50% of the members (the most common opinion is not necessarily the opinion of more than half of the members) and no direct discussion is held among members.

Because individual errors and extreme opinions tend to cancel themselves out under this method, it usually is a better procedure to follow than the designated leader method (without a group discussion). At least members are consulted. The disadvan- tage of averaging is that the opinions of the least knowledgeable members may annul the opinions of the most knowledgeable members. Letting the most expert member make the decision is always better than using a group average to decide. And although group members are consulted before the decision is made, they are still relatively

Decision Making

uninvolved in the decision making itself. Consequently, their commitment to the decision may not be strong. If implementation of a decision made by this method requires the efforts of all group members, the effectiveness of the decision probably will be slight.

Group decision-making procedures have been created to average group opin- ions while eliminating or controlling members’ interaction with one another. The Delphi technique was developed by Dalkey, Helmer, and their colleagues at the RAND Corporation (Dalkey, 1969, 1975) to improve judgmental forecasting (e.g., economic forecasts and the cost of fringe benefits) by providing practical proce- dures for eliciting expert opinions. First, members are asked to provide individual estimates for the focal quality, and their opinions are collected and summarized in a way that ensures the anonymity of each member. Then a summary of the mem- bers’ opinions is circulated among the members. The members are then provided with an opportunity to revise their earlier forecasts. This procedure is repeated sev- eral times until individual opinions stabilize—that is, members change no more. The median or mean of the set of individual estimates is taken as the final group forecast. Dalkey (1969) claimed that the procedure avoided the “biasing effects of dominant individuals, or irrelevant communications, and of group pressure toward conformity” (p. 408).

A nominal group technique meeting begins with individual assessment of the problem; individuals first generate ideas concerning the issue without any discus- sion. Each participant then presents personal ideas in a face-to-face group meeting, and these ideas are recorded. After all the ideas are recorded, group discussion be- gins, and is primarily focused on clarifying the stated ideas. Finally, each member evaluates the ideas by ranking them, and these rankings are combined mathemati- cally to yield a group judgment (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). Both of these methods are based on the assumption that groups are so poorly structured and members are so unskilled that interaction among members is better avoided. They should be used only as a last resort when other decision-making methods have failed.

Method 4: Decision by Authority After Group Discussion

Many groups have an authority structure that clearly indicates that the designated leader makes the decisions. Groups that function within organizations such as busi- nesses and government agencies usually employ this method of decision making. The designated leader calls a meeting of the group, presents the issues, listens to the dis- cussion until he or she is sure of what the decision should be, and then announces the decision to the group.

Listening to a group discussion will usually improve the accuracy of a decision made by the group’s leader. The greater the leader’s skill as a listener, the greater will be the benefits of the group discussion. But although members can become involved in the discussion, they have no part in the decision making, which tends not to help the decision’s effectiveness. As a result, during the group discussion members may tend to either compete to impress the leader or tell the leader what they think he or she wants to hear.

Decision Making

Method 5: Decision by Minority

A minority—two or more members who constitute less than 50% of the group—can make the group’s decisions in several ways, some legitimate and some illegitimate. This form of decision making is known as minority control. One legitimate method is for the minority to act as an executive committee to make decisions for the group. Another is for the minority to act as a temporary committee that considers special problems and decides what action the group should take. An illegitimate method is rail- roading. Railroading occurs when two or more members come to a quick agreement on a course of action, challenge the rest of the group with a sudden “Does anyone object?” and, if no one replies fast enough, proceed with a “Let’s go ahead, then.” Or a minority may forcibly recommend a course of action—implying that anyone who disagrees is in for a fight—and then move ahead before other members can consider the issue carefully. They assume that anyone who is silent agrees. But silence may mean that members need more time to organize their thoughts or are afraid to be the only one who disagrees.

The minority members who make the decision may be committed to implement- ing it, but the majority may not only be uncommitted, they may even want to prevent the decision from being implemented. When a group has a large number of decisions to be made and not enough time to deal with them all, decision-making committees can be efficient. This method also may be effective if a large number of decisions do not re- quire the involvement and support of the rest of the group in order to be implemented. In general, however, decision by minority is not a good method of decision making.

Method 6: Decision by Majority Vote

Majority vote is the method of group decision making most commonly used in the United States, so much so, it is almost a ritual. The procedure is to discuss an issue only as long as it takes 51% of the members to agree on a course of action. On the surface, majority voting resembles our election system, but critical differences exist between elections and the use of majority vote in most groups. In our political system, minority rights are carefully protected through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and politi- cal minorities always have the right to compete on equal terms in the next election in order to become a majority. In most groups, however, minority opinions are not always safeguarded, and in retaliation, members holding the minority position may refuse to contribute their resources in implementing the decision. Minority opinion members tend to support the majority position only when they believe their views have been fairly considered and will be considered again in the future. If majority voting is to be used, the group must be sure that it has created a climate in which members feel they have had their day in court and will feel obliged to support the majority decision. Where commitment by everyone is not essential, of course, a majority vote can serve very well.

Method 7: Decision by Consensus

Consensus is the most effective method of group decision making, but it also requires the most time and resources. Consensus means that everyone agrees on the same course of action. It typically requires sufficient open communication and social sup- port that all members believe they have had a fair chance to influence the decision.

Decision Making

When a decision is made by consensus, all members understand the decision and are prepared to support it. Members who have doubts nevertheless say publicly that they are willing to give the decision a try for a period of time. Decisions made by consensus sometimes are referred to as synergistic decisions.

To achieve consensus, members must have enough time to discuss their views thoroughly. Members should believe that their views have been listened to, con- sidered, and understood. Members need to see differences of opinion as a way of (1) gathering additional information, (2) clarifying issues, and (3) motivating the group to seek better alternative courses of action. The basic guidelines for consensual deci- sion making are as follows:

1. Seek out differences of opinion. They are natural and expected. Try to involve everyone in the decision because doing so will access a wide range of informa- tion and opinions, thereby creating a better chance for the group to create more adequate solutions.

2. Present your position as clearly and logically as possible. Be persuasive. Make sure you present the best case possible for what you believe. Listen carefully to other members’ reactions, and consider them carefully before you press your point.

3. Critically analyze the other positions. Give them a “trial by fire” by pointing out their shortcomings and listening to their advocates responses.

4. Encourage all group members to present the best case possible for what they believe.

5. Change your mind when you are logically persuaded to do so. Do not simply agree to reach agreement and avoid conflict. Yield only to positions that have objective and logically sound foundations.

6. Avoid conflict-reducing procedures such as majority voting, tossing a coin, av- eraging, and bargaining.

7. Keep the goal of reaching the best decision possible salient. Do not assume that someone must win and someone must lose when discussion reaches a stale- mate. Instead, look for the next most acceptable alternative for all members.

Consensus is the best method for producing an innovative, creative, and high- quality decision that (1) all members will be committed to implementing, (2) uses the resources of all group members, and (3) increases the future decision-making effective- ness of the group. It is often difficult to reach (Kerr et al., 1976). Striving for consensus is characterized by more conflict among members, more shifts of opinion, a longer time to reach a conclusion, and more confidence by members in the correctness of their deci- sion (Nemeth, 1977). To reach consensus, group leaders should encourage all members to participate, encourage differences of opinions to be expressed, and express acceptance of different positions and perspectives (Torrance, 1957). Group leaders also should en- courage minority opinions and conflict among members (Maier & Solem, 1952).

Relation Between Time and Decision Making

Every method of decision making takes a different amount of time. The more per- sons involved in the decision making, the longer it will tend to take to reach a deci- sion. Figure 5 summarizes the relationship among the number of persons involved, the