Decision Making

Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Chapter 8 Group Decision Making and Performance "The greater the loyalty of a group toward the group, the greater is the motivation among the members to achieve the goals of the group, the greater the probability that the group will achieve its goals." —Rensis Likert, organizational psychologist and creator of the Likert Scale Learning Objectives What We Will Be Investigating: To what extent does the make-up of a group determine its effectiveness? What are the different kinds of decisions schemes available to groups? Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] While the president made the final decision to send the special forces unit into the compound where bin Laden was hiding, he consulted with many advisers from the military and his administration. How do group goals and decision procedures effect the group's success? What are the pitfalls of groupthink, and how can they be avoided? Why do some situations lead to social loafing, and how can those situations be minimized? Introduction Before deciding to take military action, such as bombing a military target, the president of the United States will meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The group will offer input on the viability of the plan. The final decision is that of the president. In World War II President Harry S. Truman had input from military commanders before deciding to drop atomic-bombs on Japan. In 2011 President Barack Obama discussed with his military leadership the opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden. The final decision to go ahead with the action to be carried out by a U.S. special forces military unit belonged to the president. The leader of the organization has the final word in a business decision as well; after all, he or she will be held responsible if that decision turns out badly. That doesn't mean the leader doesn't need—or want—input from others. As Travelocity CEO Michelle Peluso notes, "If you're genuine, passionate, and have a clear vision, it resonates with your employees." (Gallo, 2006). That means that employees need to understand the corporate mission, but it also means that organizational leaders need to engage those employees. Peluso, for example, communicates frequently with her employees, with weekly e-mails, monthly lunches, and visits to offices around the globe. Do groups do better than a person working individually? Most research indicates that groups are considerably more productive overall. Sometimes, though, groups do worse than the average member working alone, even spectacularly worse. The issue becomes under which circumstances does working in groups produce a superior, mediocre, or inferior product, and what forces influence the decision-making process in groups. In this chapter, we first review how the presence of other people, the situation (especially characteristics of the task), and group motivation influence group performance and decision making. The survival of a group in a competitive environment can depend tremendously on how well it does its job. The level of group productivity and the quality of a group's product are clearly critical to many organizations and companies. 8.1 Social Facilitation Revisited In Chapter 1, we discussed social facilitation (Zajonc, 1965). To better understand the decision-making process of groups, it will be helpful to briefly review this concept. Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Working out with a partner is a form of social facilitation. It pushes each person to do more via both mutual support and informal competition. Does the presences of others improve or diminish performance of an individual, or does it not affect performance at all? The basic idea of social facilitation is that the presence of others creates at least some physiological arousal, such as a faster heart rate or higher blood pressure. Such arousal heightens the probability of performing dominant responses, those responses that are most likely. For an easy or well-learned task the most likely, dominant, response is to do well. For complex or new tasks the most likely or dominant response is to do poorly When a dominant response is correct, the presence of others improves performance. In short, a correct dominant response can drive the group toward its goal and do so by keeping the group focused on its goal and how to achieve it. But if the dominant response is incorrect, performance can suffer. For instance, before the space shuttle Challenger launched in 1986, one employee said that the shuttle should not fly that day. His superiors overruled him. Almost immediately after launch the shuttle broke apart, killing its seven crew members. The dominant response in the group, in this case, with a difficult and complex problem was wrong. Social facilitation effects appear to improve performance the most on relatively simple jobs, such as an assembly line task (Guerin, 1993). The presence of others thus can improve performance probably through motivation, when improvement is easy to do. Social facilitation can affect the speed of responses or the accuracy with which a response is made, resulting in quicker or more accurate responses on easy tasks when others are around. Social influence can also improve performance on more complex tasks that have been learned very well (Bond & Titus, 1983; Underwood, 1976). Social facilitation effects usually involve individuals all doing the same task, in contrast to the division of labor where each individual takes up his or her part of the work to be completed. However, many work groups do consist of co-actors. Stitchers in a clothing factory or counterworkers at the post office are all co-actors, executing the same job at the same time in the same place. Although these are not groups in the sense of having coordinated roles, the presence of co-workers should influence individual performance just the same. Physical trainers use this idea when they suggest that people do their work-outs with at least one other person: Each performs better because of the support of the other person, as well as the informal competition that may arise between them. And, of course, many co-actors hold common goals, for example to meet or exceed production standards; their ability to accomplish those goals is often influenced, positively, by the other coactors. More detailed research finds that a key to the physiological arousal that occurs with compresence, that is, the mere presence of others, is a phenomenon called evaluation apprehension (Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle, 1968). Evaluation apprehension is a social anxiety that occurs when we believe that our behavior and performance are under scrutiny. Although arousal may occur simply because other people are present in the setting, it is heightened if some type of evaluation situation is involved. For example, if you're a sales person interacting with a client, you may be a bit more nervous than normal if some sales colleagues are watching your pitch; however, you may be even more nervous if your manager is watching. In contrast, with groups of friends, a relaxation response may occur instead (Benson, 1976). As Dr. Herbert Benson characterizes it, such a relaxation response is "a physical state of deep rest that changes the physical and emotional responses to stress." This can be an effective strategy for dealing with such stress. However, problems Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] can arise if such a response is not proportional. In fact, the relaxation response suggests one mechanism whereby more interpersonally cohesive groups can be less productive: If relationships are too friendly, group members are more relaxed, are less motivated to produce according to the norms of the larger organization, and possibly produce at a lower quantity and quality. What if the situation is new, or the task is unstructured or complex, requiring a sequence of steps to complete that the individual is not entirely familiar with? In that case, both theory and empirical results suggest that individual performance tends to suffer in the presence of others, especially on novel tasks (Ferris, Beehr, & Gilmore, 1978). The recommendation is to thoroughly study, practice, or rehearse alone, then perform in the presence of either co-acting others or an audience. The presence of others will then increase arousal, thereby facilitating the performance of well-learned responses. Other theorists in the area of compresence and audience effects suspect that more cognitive processes are at work when people perform in the presence of others, such as heightened self-awareness and increased selfmonitoring (Guerin, 1993). The increased attention paid to one's performance can actually distract individuals from exclusive attention to the task. Ivan Steiner's (1966; Steiner & Rajaratnam, 1961) social combination theory, in contrast, focuses more on group, rather than individual, productivity. In Steiner's view, group performance depends more on whether groups have the resources to succeed and whether groups can combine these resources productively. For example, schools that lack trained teachers, updated computers, sufficient textbooks, or laboratory equipment face gigantic hurdles in becoming A-level schools. Such schools are more than likely to have less desirable outcomes than schools that are fully equipped. A factory working with outmoded equipment will be at a competitive disadvantage until machinery is replaced. 8.2 The Effects of the Situation As we've discussed throughout this text, the situation, or environmental context, can have a profound effect on how we behave, individually, in groups, and as groups. This section lays out those effects in more detail. We look more closely at how diversity, group goals, and the task at hand can all affect group performance. Diversity Factors such as co-actors or audience effects can interact with situational variables such as task complexity, group diversity, group size, or the nature of the task to influence task performance. The initialism KSA is short for knowledge, skills, and abilities that members bring with them to a group situation (GovCentral). Similar to other types of KSAs that people possess, group skills learned in one situation may generalize to others. In chapter 4, we studied how diversity in a group, whether in demographic characteristics (such as social class), training (such as an MBA), or experience (such as with an international marketing campaign), can bestow mixed effects on group productivity. It can impede group generativity because group members may need to learn to speak a common language and possibly to overcome any past misgivings about those from different backgrounds. Here we examine membership diversity in more detail. Different kinds of divisions within groups can bring different interactional styles to a group setting. For example, in general women and men tend to have different interaction styles in groups. Men interrupt women at extremely high ratios and women appear more interested in consensus building (Gilligan, 1982). Factors such as these should be considered if all group members are to participate effectively. The theory of expectation suggests that differences that come from Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] In an increasingly globalized marketplace, being knowledgeable of a diverse range of perspectives and cultures will become an increasingly powerful asset. Women in the Workplace statuses outside the group (diffuse status characteristics, see chapters 3 and 7) should be leveled. If they are not, members with newer, junior, or subordinate statuses are more likely to have their contributions ignored and be reluctant to speak up. Further, because similarity among members can be a primary source of group cohesion, extra effort may be needed to create a cohesive group when the members have diverse backgrounds and experiences. On the other hand, diversity of group membership can be a plus—if it is handled carefully. It can increase the quantity and especially the quality of outcomes because diversity has the potential to bring a richness of perspective to group deliberations. Varied group members bring singular points of view and can supplement each other's information. A diverse group is likely to have a large collective memory that surpasses the individual memories of all members. Diversity can be especially useful if members are able to transfer skills from earlier situations to the present group setting. William Sewell's theory of structuation (1992) describes how group members can transfer skills from one setting to another. A teacher may have developed particularly good skills at presenting complex information in a way that is clear and accessible; this kind of ability is easily transferred to a context in which, for example, a business needs its own complex situation presented in the same way, perhaps to potential investors. Such a teacher may also draw on his or her experience with other teachers—specifically the kind support those other teachers provided —to develop similar structures within a business environment. Since at least Carol Gilligan's influential In a Different Voice (1982), there has been a great deal of discussion about the different approaches brought to problem solving by men and women. To oversimplify these stillcontroversial results, the basic idea Gilligan put forth is that while men tend to be confrontational and competitive, women more often tended to stress cooperation and negotiation as a way of solving problems. The techniques here that are more commonly associated with women are easily transferred to the business context. As author Faith Popcorn (Popcorn & Marigold, 1997) has noted, in business, interaction will "no longer be seen as a war to be won by trouncing the competition, but viewed as a complicated mosaic to be developed, one relationship at a time." While competition still has, of course, its cutthroat aspect, rethinking competition as negotiation brings a distinct and often productive perspective to this context. The fundamental point here can be made more generally, as well. Just as having more women in business—particularly in the decision-making process —has led to new approaches to making those decisions, adding distinct voices of others offers new opportunities for rethinking how business is done. A Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] A number of experts discuss the changing dynamics of the workplace with the increase of females being represented there, and the challenges that persist. diversity of views—culturally distinct, ethnically distinct, and drawing on the many other contrasting perspectives that arise within a global social context —can provide a corporation with a number of strategies that might not otherwise have been available. For, after all, solving a problem may often require rethinking the problem itself. And the skills that members of various groups develop within one context—from their churches, synagogues, or mosques, their parent organizations (such as "Mom's groups"), and their distinct cultural traditions—can be valuable additions to the more traditional approaches that some companies embrace, approaches that often risk the stagnation of their decision-making processes. A simple example should make this clear. Imagine you are running an international business that has substantial dealings with companies in Argentina and Venezuela. Having employees who are familiar with the history, politics, and culture of these countries, and who can speak Spanish, is a competitive advantage relative to companies who lack such employees. In an increasingly global and diverse marketplace, these kinds of advantages will continue to be sought by the successful business. Group Goals Group goals provide a vision to motivate members and can charge them with idealism. The type of goals a group adopts also may facilitate group performance. One model of group goals and performance is the START model (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). According to this model, goals should be Specific, Trackable, Achievable, Relevant, and Transferrable: Specific and clearly understood by all members. Ideally, goals are operational, that is, members can understand and identify the specific steps that should be taken to attain group goals. The effective manager knows that goals that aren't well understood are considerably less likely to be achieved. Trackable and measurable. Goals that are measurable provide tangible evidence of the group's progress toward its goals. Quantifying or measuring goals also helps maintain focus by allowing the group to see what has been accomplished and what remains to be accomplished. Achievable—but challenging. The group's level of aspiration constantly adjusts to prior successes or failures. If a group continually aspires to an unattainably high standard, the result will be loss of group morale and disillusionment. However, if the goal is not challenging enough, members will become bored or dissatisfied, engage in side conversations, or put forth little effort. Group members must be aware of these constraints, to ensure they stay away from either extreme identified here. Relevant. The group must recognize that its goals, and the work done toward achieving those goals, must be relevant. Most people lost interest if they do not see the reason for doing something. Irrelevant goals and busy work will decrease group focus and, consequently, its effectiveness and productivity. Transferable, that is, they allow transfer of skills to other settings. As mentioned above, such skills as negotiating and putting an emphasis on cooperation can be developed in a setting such as a family, or an informal context such as a parent-teacher organization, and then effectively transferred to a business setting. In addition, cooperative goal structures require members to fill interlocking or otherwise interdependent role vacancies if the group is to achieve success. The Task Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Group tasks can vary enormously. Some can be completed by individuals working on their own. Other tasks demand cooperative behavior among members. Unitary or co-active tasks are those in which members essentially serve as co-actors and perform similar behaviors roughly simultaneously. An assembly line in which independent co-workers construct fast-food hamburgers is a unitary task. The results of conjunctive tasks are determined by the weakest member. In an assembly line, where each person performs an assigned task, the weakest member of this group will cause the entire group to slow down by causing bottlenecks and other problems. In disjunctive tasks, the results are determined by the strongest member. For example, in writing a report, the best writer in the group may synthesize and polish pieces of the report that were compiled by other members. Additive tasks are the sum of individual performances. For example, the number of surfboards produced by a factory team, taken together, will indicate how effective the team is as a whole. In compensatory tasks, individual performances are averaged in some way. The monthly productivity of a work group may be averaged across its members, at the risk of some high-performing members not being recognized and leaving open the possibility of some members free-riding on those high-performing members. A group's subtasks may be unitary, and neither divided nor cooperative. Alternatively, the group task may be divisible, which typically means that it may be a set of coordinated subtasks. Each member contributes his or her share to the whole, and is responsible for an individual component of the end product. When we consider group productivity, the type of task becomes critical. Group productivity typically outstrips that of the average individual, particularly for additive, compensatory, and conjunctive or disjunctive tasks (Frank & Anderson, 1971). A real estate company, for instance, will focus on the combined total of its sales force, each making his or her contribution. Here the weak link—the person producing the lowest sales—will be identified, as will be those who are outperforming others. In turn, the supervisor of the sales force will be evaluated on the basis of total sales. Consequently the type of task can also be important in how a group decides to structure a solution or how to create, divide, or coordinate task roles, and how success in achieving various goals is evaluated. Of course, many times, the group itself does not decide what the task will be or determine its own goals. Volunteer groups often choose their own tasks, as do smaller work groups, which may decide on how to implement a task. On the other hand, in hierarchical organizations, the group task may well be assigned or delegated by status superiors. Members can only decide how to put the task into action, not what it will be in the first place. For example, employees often are told they must increase production or members of a local political group are told to raise votes and funding for state and national candidates. No matter what type of task it is, the efforts of each and every team member is vitally important. Communication between team members, valuing the efforts of every team member, leadership, and clarity of task and standards are key to performing additive, disjunctive, and conjunctive tasks well. It is important to strive for continuous improvement through careful observation of how task are performed. Each member of the team must be encouraged to give input on how to improve processes involved in performing designated tasks. What we see, here, then, is that evaluating the effectiveness and productivity of a given group is fundamentally determined by both the groups of that goal, and how that group—or its supervisor—determines the best way of achieving those goals. Unclear, irrelevant, or unreasonable goals may lower employee morale and prevent the group from focusing on more attainable and realistic goals. At the same time, using inappropriate methods to Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Group size can prompt social loafing. At times it may be easier for certain members to not put in as much effort due to lack of accountability. Other times, some members may simply drift along as a result of getting lost in the crowd. accomplish tasks will also interfere with accomplishing the stated tasks of the group; indeed, the very idea of an assembly line was developed when it was recognized that separating a large task into separate, specialized jobs led to greater efficiency and productivity. 8.3 Social Loafing Social loafing is neither an isolated nor a random phenomenon. For example, the Ringelmann effect, or the tendency for individual effort and productivity to drop as group size increases, has been tested for nearly a century. When tasks are simple and additive, or disjunctive, group productivity typically exceeds individual productivity. However, social loafing increases with group size and this is a prime source of process loss wherein members work below their potential. Social loafing refers to the tendency for many members to work below capacity when in a group. Typical complaints from industrious group members are "I am the only one who does any work" or "I hate to be the one who did all the work and these loafers get the same credit for it." To be charitable, social loafing may also reflect a lack of group focus so that members are not exactly sure what they are supposed to do, the necessary sequence of steps to task completion, or when tasks should be completed. Even suspicions of social loafing damage group cohesion and group productivity. What follows are some factors that increase social loafing. Group size. Recall that diffusion of responsibility increases with group size. It is also easier for one's contributions to be relatively hidden in a large group and absences are not as readily noticed. This also can contribute to some members free-riding, obtaining whatever advantages from group's achievements without contributing their own fair share of the effort. In other instances, the lack of contribution may not even be conscious. An individual in a large group may in fact simply get lost in the crowd. Anonymity and/or private responses. Anonymous or private responses make it difficult to assess a member's contribution to the task. Attaching one's name to a task or subtask will generate some degree of responsibility for the result that can function as an incentive; similarly, anonymity may decrease that sense of responsibility. Accountability in group work, as in all endeavors, is crucial to maintaining high levels of productivity. Poor group communication. Insufficient communication among group members can lead to misunderstandings of what the group is trying to achieve, as well as interfering with the group's efficiency if some members conclude that inadequate information is a reason for ignoring the task altogether. If messages aren't clearly and efficiently conveyed, frustration among members can set in quickly. Typically when frustration levels go up, productivity goes down. Less structured environment. Less structured, more informal work environments have their benefits, but they Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] also run the risk of muddling the allocation of responsibility. They may in fact create a lack of clarity regarding task assignment, which sets off a negative chain of events. It is easier to shirk one's responsibility when it isn't clear what is supposed to be done to achieve the task or who is accountable for completing certain subtasks. When accountability decreases, often so does productivity. The lesson of clear communication needs to be reinforced here: Clarity in expressing goals and duties among the group is crucial to the productivity of that group. Higher levels of cohesion. Sometimes high levels of cohesion can foster loafing if the group's norms undermine the productivity goals of the larger organization. Such a situation can lead to resistance to these goals, and generate a destructive sense of "us against them." In this sense, group cohesion—often a very positive aspect of a group—can lead to negative results. If group norms favor productivity, nearly all members will be more motivated and work harder. If group norms favor sociability, however, recall social interaction is what will increase instead. Business in the Real World Combating Social Loafing We have seen a number of factors that can lead to social loafing. Good, effective managers must be aware of these factors, and develop strategies to prevent them, or at least minimize the damage they can do. Some of the techniques that are traditionally suggested to combat social loafing are make the group's responsibilities very clear explain how the group is to be evaluated provide feedback on the group and how it handled its task(s) The classic examination of social loafing is Max Ringelmann's 1913 article (in French) on group versus individual performance. Try doing an Internet search on the "Ringelmann Effect," and read about its specific applications in sports, politics, and business. Then give a specific example of social loafing you have observed (or engaged in!), or construct what might be a plausible example of social loafing in the workplace. Based on the hints mentioned in the text about responsibility, evaluation, and feedback, explain how you might try to combat such social loafing, by mapping out specific techniques and strategies in the workplace you think might be effective. 8.4 Making Decisions Groups tend to make decisions in stages. For example, one model of group decision making delineates orientation, discussion, decision, and implementation stages (Forsyth, 2010). In making decisions, groups also call upon a variety of decision rules sometimes called information processing schemas or decision schemes. In other words, when tackling a problem, groups must start somewhere to decide what the problem is, what the resolutions may be, and how to implement action steps. At the same time they need basic rules for how members will interact, move Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Sometimes groups have a "eureka" moment where the solution is suddenly evident. Unfortunately, making a decision isn't always that easy. toward their goals, how to recognize the best solution, and when and how to act upon it. It is worth noting, however, that group size is a relevant factor here. As briefly mentioned above, the larger the group, the more difficult it can be to keep it focused and accountable. For example, the "eureka" situation rule (Forsyth, 2010) is invoked when a proposal or solution seems so intuitively obvious to most members once it is explained that the proposal is almost immediately adopted. For example, a member of the marketing team may clarify that the company needs a more vigorous Internet presence and provide examples of possible websites. After viewing the presentation, members may experience an "aha!" crystallization so that the proposal or solution appears instinctively true. When group members come together to make a decision they are combining each person's preferences into a collective answer. Patrick Laughlin (2011; Laughlin & Adamopoulos, 1980; Laughlin & Ellis, 1986) argues that this is best conceptualized by a process he calls truthsupported wins. For this process two individuals with the right answer are needed and are sufficient for the group to end up with the correct answer (truth). For example, if a 6-person study group were trying to make sense of a chemical formula, a single member who has the correct answer would not necessarily get any greater attention than the other members. If two members had that correct answer, the group as a whole is much more likely to join them and, as a group, make a correct judgment. When a correct answer (truth) is held by two members (supported), it wins. Groups suffer from some of the same information-processing impediments that individuals face when there is so much data that it can't be processed effectively. This is a potential hazard in the brainstorming process, which is discussed in more detail a bit later in this section. Groups try to sort through too many unranked ideas that range from the ridiculous to the potentially useful. When there is just too much information, the group may be overly influenced by how vivid and memorable ideas or solutions appear. However, by the same token, they may be left unimpressed by dry—but worthwhile— statistical summaries. Members may act as "agenda scholars," that is, they are use confirmatory biases in hypothesis testing rather than evidence-driven decisions. Thus, instead of objectively weighing evidence, the group may selectively gather data to support the conclusions it already had reached in advance. For example, if a new product is flamboyant enough to suggest it may be a best seller, the group may overlook the costs of production and emphasize its probable popularity. In their haste to reach decisions, group members may form conclusions too rapidly. Thus, instead of trying to reason through alternatives, the group may force a premature vote, or spend its time trying to convert those who have such distinct perspectives that they might be less enthralled with the proposed decision. The rest of this section deals with the decision-making process. Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Three CNN executives discuss the challenges and factors involved in successful decision making. Decision Making and Delegation Case Study Assessment of Brainstorming Brainstorming is a technique that was developed during the 1970s and widely applied in areas such as marketing to overcome problems like coming to conclusions too rapidly or expressing and exploring diverse ideasThe general notion was to have a group generate as many imaginative ideas as possible. Then the group would refine these ideas and adopt a decision, a new marketing scheme, or a new program. The process was to serve as a starting point for group discussions and generativity. In practice, however, the brainstorming process doesn't always function as intended. Because group members might be shy in expressing their ideas or sensitive to criticism, or because diffuse status characteristics might lead some members' contributions to be uncritically valued more highly than others, brainstorming groups adopted rules to maximize the generation of original ideas. Any idea, no matter how initially ridiculous it might seem, was to be considered. Members were expected to add to the ideas generated throughout the brainstorming session, and evaluation of ideas was reserved for the end of the session. For several reasons, the research literature on brainstorming has been mixed, and the technique has not been considered to live up to its earlier promise (Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991). Brainstorming can lead to information overload; the group may generate so many ideas that people begin to try to block out too much information and stop paying attention. This arousal overload can also make some people anxious or nervous. Other members feel conspicuous because they believe they are overcontributing to the group solutions. At that point, those group members can clam up and, as a result, express fewer creative ideas. In fact, members may need silence and time to assimilate the many ideas that the group can generate and to further develop ideas individually. Individual output can then be combined later into a group project. The failure of simple brainstorming to work effectively and the reluctance of organizations to put more structured rules in place for more effective brainstorming sessions unfortunately has led this technique to an early demise as a routine event, although it still resurfaces. Of course, brainstorming may be superior to ignoring a topic entirely. Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] A review of the focus group materials (for example, in chapter 2) might be helpful to those who wish to try brainstorming. Focus groups, too, emphasize the generation of ideas and tolerance of expressing nonconforming ideas. However, focus groups do have some structure, good suggestions for group composition, and guidelines for the regulation of verbal behavior that might be just the format to help brainstorming groups become more productive and restore utility to this technique. Decision Schemes Groups utilize a variety of decision schemes to define the problem and decide on its solutions. As discussed a bit earlier, different tasks require different strategies; choosing an inappropriate strategy for a given task can, conceivably, lead to significant friction and very inefficient practices. Examples are provided below and clearly some will be more efficacious than others. Voting appears democratic; however, a majority vote may conceal serious concerns among a minority. If group members hold diverse statuses in a hierarchy and judgments are publicly announced, newer or lower status members may be reluctant to voice their reservations. If voting is used, it is imperative not to prematurely close discussion before a ballot is taken. While the advantage of voting is that, as a process, it makes all members feel as if they get their say in the issue, at the same time, it may overwhelm an important perspective held by a few, or even one member of the group. Occasionally, secret ballots can be used to minimize this problem, depending on whether the vote is binding or not. Compromise averaging is an attempt to give everyone in the group a say in the matter. But this process can be time consuming, and may also prevent a strongly held and correct view from being getting sufficient representation in the final outcome. As with any decision scheme, the best strategy will often depend on the business context and the composition and chemistry of the group as a whole. Horse trading is a related set of decision rules, with interactive give and take a method of compromising such that selective aspects of different members' agendas are adopted. This allows members of the group to emphasize their priorities and make sure that what is most important to them is given due consideration. At the same time, this procedure can be a bit time consuming, and some members may feel as if they were required to sacrifice some important issues in order to get their priorities recognized. Voting, compromise averaging, and horse trading are up-front decision rules. Presumably members are voicing their views and are apprised of the alternative resolutions. On the other hand, the three decision tactics— procrastination, implicit consensus, and delegate decisions—are ways to avoid making a decision. Procrastination is putting off decisions until the group is forced to make them. In an implicit consensus, no actual vote is taken; the group simply and silently moves ahead. The group may simply delegate decisions, for example, to a committee or to upper-level management. Group members do more than simply share information during discussion. They evaluate information, make plans, encourage one another, and reward contributions. Of course, members may also try to influence others to their own point of view. Members may possess hidden agendas, private plans for individual as opposed to group, benefit. Members also may form coalitions to either ward off influence or create support for their own position. Interpersonal Dynamics of Decision Making Interpersonal dynamics are a very influential factor in the decision-making process. It is important to consider not only the group but also the individual members within the group. Research examining various ethnic groups and Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] cultures indicates that interpersonal skills through the group decision-making process typically need to be sharpened (Seidner, 1991). For example, many members simply wait for a pause in the group conversation so that they can jump in and start talking, but this is a somewhat passive strategy and sometimes leads to inattentiveness regarding what's the substance of what's actually being discussed. Instead group members must learn to listen carefully so that they can actively engage and respond within the flow of conversation as well as to be mindful of expressing their initial points of view. Members also need to clearly communicate their own goals, values, and plans for group actions. Taking brief notes during group interaction can often help this process. Irrespective of how much members want to belong to this particular group, all members need to participate and avoid remaining aloof. And of course, group interaction should be courteous! All members should show respect toward others and their ideas. Negative behaviors such as interruptions, belittlement, or personal criticism should be avoided. Egocentric behavior and self-aggrandizement, that is, "star" rather than team behavior, should be avoided. As a member of a group, you and other group members will need to stay on task. One way of facilitating this is to take brief notes of the high points of the discussions the group has. Recording meetings can also be helpful, particularly if the technology permits immediate stop and playback. Especially if the group has been meeting for some time, or if members were friends prior to the group setting, members should be careful to avoid side conversations and forming social coalitions. All of these words of wisdom probably seem intuitively obvious, and these protocols are ones that should have been well learned in elementary school. But it is astounding how many of these counterproductive behaviors occur in groups and impede the decision-making process. For example, if members are used to being star performers, it may be difficult for them to hold back and not dominate the decision-making process. Other group members should monitor and control egocentric or negative behaviors on the part of their teammates. Sometimes a gentle reminder from a respected group member is sufficient to remind one engaging in negative behavior to avoid doing so. At other times, if the behavior is persistent and clearly damaging the group's effectiveness, the group may need to draft a set of specific ground rules their discussion needs to follow. Such rules might include respect for others, the importance of listening carefully to others, and that input from all members of the group is valued. Members' individual characteristics or how members see themselves positioned in a group can, in part, affect the direction a group will move in, which is the topic of our next section on group polarization. Group Polarization Not only have groups in general been accused of stifling original and creative ideas, the cliché has been that group decisions are conservative. Group discussion was thought to moderate extreme viewpoints, and opinions or courses of action would reflect horse trading and compromises among members. Therefore, you can imagine the surprise among researchers in the mid 1960s when a series of studies, called the "Stoner dilemmas" after their author (Stoner, 1968), reported that, as a result of group discussion, not only was the group's final choice more risky than the average of members' choices before deliberation, but members' individual posttest scores also moved Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Groups sometimes tend to make more risky decisions than each member would if alone. This is referred to as "risky shift." in a "risky" direction. These studies were called research on the risky shift. For example, in one scenario, an engineer is preparing to leave his position with a large, successful company for a job with a smaller start-up firm. Since new small companies often fail in their first years, initially and independently, group members were asked to indicate the lowest probability of success they would accept for the fledgling firm in order to recommend it to the engineer for employment. After group discussion, the group's recommended probability of success was lower, that is, riskier, than the average of the initial individual member judgments. Within the next 10 years of research, it became apparent (1) that groups could also experience conservative shifts and (2) that it was something about the group discussion that could move members in a direction more extreme (risky or conservative) than the average of group member's individual viewpoints (Stoner, 1968). Discussion appears to intensify attitudes, beliefs, values, judgments, and perceptions. The entire phenomenon thus has been renamed group polarization, or group-polarized decision making. Group polarization may occur because those holding extreme views often try to be persuasive and these members may talk so much that silent members may conclude that this is the group's position. Pressures toward unanimity, such as occur in juries, or social comparison processes (the new information presented stimulates members to compare their own opinions with the group) may also be important. Group discussion may also provide a forum for members to learn the group's values. The risky or conservative direction of the shift seems to follow the general direction of group values (Cecil, Cumming, & Chertkoff, 1973). Polarized decisions can be a dramatic reminder that groups can take on a life of their own, divergent from the sum or average of individual members. Indeed, a group may end up making a decision that no individual member thinks is optimal. Consider a company thinking of taking over a smaller competitor. The smaller company has a great deal of outstanding debt and other problems; the advantages of taking it over seem outweighed by the disadvantages. But the momentum of the group leads it to decide to make the purchase, even though most of the group members are skeptical. For some of the reasons mentioned above, this skepticism can be overwhelmed in certain group contexts. Management Connections Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Understanding and Controlling Group Polarization Tendencies You run a paint company that generates a fair amount of hazardous waste. The waste you produce is an inevitable product of your production facility, and must be disposed of safely and legally. There are various expenses associated with this disposal; some disposal sites are cheaper, but farther away from your plant, while those closest to your plant are considerably more expensive to use. You call your 12 managers together for a set of meetings that you anticipate will take a month or two. You tell them that by the end of the set of meetings, you need a plan to dispose of this hazardous waste, a consideration of the various options available, and a general indication of the costs involved in coming up with the recommended plan and the costs involved with the other options. You expect a clear, informed decision that involves the input of all the managers, and you expect a well-stated justification for the decision the group recommends. Identify what kinds of things in this scenario might generate a riskier decision than is ideal. Identify what kinds of things in this scenario might generate a more conservative decision than is ideal. Explain how you, as the boss, can help prevent the group from ending up at either of these extremes. What strategies might you adopt to ensure that the group makes the correct decision? Explain how the various members of the group can help determine the correct result. How does this involve effective communication with each other? What other factors will be important in promoting effective interaction among the group members? What are the challenges that may emerge within the group that could prevent them from making the best decision? 8.5 Groupthink Revisited Not only can intact group decisions in their natural setting differ from the average of co-acting individuals in a simulated group of strangers, but in real life some group decisions can be disastrous. You'll recall from Chapter 6 that Irving Janis (1996) used the term groupthink to describe a rigid, narrow style of decision making that can foster poor group decisions. Typically the group's decisions are problematic because the group considers only a narrow range of data that supports its own agenda. Political decisions, as well as business decisions, often result from groupthink, and without individual members or the group as a whole explicitly committed to the importance of dissent and criticism, these decisions can often be disastrous. In Chapter 6, we examined groupthink from the perspective of group cohesion. Because members want to belong and because cohesive groups are better at enforcing norms and rejecting deviants, cohesive groups can more easily impose homogeneity and uniformity upon their membership. This suggests that interpersonal cohesion or possibly the attractiveness of a highly prestigious group may increase groupthink while stressing task cohesion or group structure may decrease it. In addition to group cohesion, a directive leader who states his or her own direction early in the group session may exacerbate the problem. Here we look at groupthink in the context of group decision making, from its symptoms to how it may be ameliorated. Groupthink Symptoms What makes groupthink different from a cohesive group that sets out to define and solve a problem? What are Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] A major symptom of groupthink emerging is if contradictory ideas or different perspectives are squelched before they can be properly articulated and considered by the group. some of the expressions of groupthink to look for? Stifling of dissent or nonconforming ideas. The group may stifle dissent or ideas that do not comport with the majority perspective. The group may go even further and reject the individuals who express disagreement. Rejection can include negative processes such as strong personal criticism, belittlement, or even expulsion. Perhaps because of how nonconformists are treated, members engage in self-censorship, that is, individual members fail to even overtly consider alternative information or courses of action. Aggressive dismissal of ideas by certain members. Self-appointed mindguards may attempt to "protect" the group from contrary information or alternative courses of action, perhaps by suppressing discussion at the first sign of dissent. For example, if a member begins to express a different solution, another individual may quickly step in and announce, "We tried that and it didn't work" or "Management would never go for that solution." Potential deviants quickly learn to stay silent, which can sometimes eliminate important dissenting views. Illusions of morality. The group may claim that its decisions are better than alternatives because the group is morally superior in some way. For example, it might allude to "finer" values such as being part of a democratic society as opposed to a dictatorship. It is important to recognize that, occasionally, those making the strongest claims to the moral high ground are the least justified in making those claims. Illusions of invulnerability. The group may come to view itself as invulnerable to external forces or poor internal decisions. For example, a business team may refer to its Fortune 500 status in justifying a decision or its excellent performance in prior quarters, although neither may relate to the problem at hand. The group may express that there is no way its solutions can fail. Most businesspeople—even optimists—identify worst-case scenarios, given the risks involved in being unprepared for such scenarios taking place. Excessive in-group loyalty and bias. Exaggerated in-group loyalty and biased out-group perceptions may emerge. The group may refer to its superior values, the quality of its membership, or a group enemy. In particular, even a successful group enemy may be perceived as unable to provide any useful suggestions. This can generate an almost siege mentality of us against them, even relative to other members of the larger organization. Group isolation or insulation. When a group starts to separate itself from others groups and perspectives, the risk of groupthink escalates quickly. As a result of limiting interaction and the exchange of ideas with outsiders, the group considers only a limited number of issues and solutions. Sometimes we see this phenomenon with companies and organizations that only promote employees from within or that keep the same individuals in positions of authority for several years or even decades. As a result of these truncated ideas and alternatives, and the stifling of opinion, the group experiences premature closure on discussion; thus the full range of ideas is never considered. Belaboring known facts. The group may end up spending too much time discussing already shared information, which although it can bolster social cohesion, leads to no new solutions. While the ground trod in such a situation is familiar, comfortable, and consequently less stressful, it may end up being identified by some Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] members of the group as a waste of time, leading to a negative conception of the group itself and of that group's tasks. How Can We Prevent Groupthink? There are a number of ways to diminish the chances of groupthink emerging, and it's important for all group leaders to be aware of both the signs and the solutions. The best way to prevent groupthink is to in fact establish a dynamic that doesn't allow for it to take hold at all. The following are methods to accomplish that dynamic. Install open leadership. Establishing an open leadership structure is one way to prevent groupthink from occurring. For example, in open leadership, leaders refrain from announcing their preferred position at the beginning of group deliberations and call for a free exchange of ideas. Similar to other group methods that encourage group input and ownership, this must be a sincere attempt. An otherwise reticent employee here may bring to the group's attention an economic opportunity for expansion, for instance, that might not arise in a more traditional top-down setting. Create a tolerant group culture. Creating a tolerant group culture can be done by using a semistructured brainstorming approach. Brainstorming may encourage the expression of different strategies. Put nonjudgmental rules for discussion in place and encourage ideas from all group members. At the least this strategy will delay concurrence and premature closure. A company that is willing to consider, on occasion, the "what if?" scenarios may happen upon an opportunity through this kind of brainstorming that might otherwise be a victim of self-censorship. Limit status differences during group discussion. Leveling off or limiting status differences during group discussion is a way to prevent groupthink from emerging from the top down, but if group members represent a spectrum of positions on a hierarchy, this tactic will be difficult to implement. It may be better to create discussion groups from scratch with less variation in stratified positions. Managers, however, can make clear that ideas, rather than status, is the crucial aspect of such discussions, potentially generating valuable comments that status differentials can prevent from emerging. Stress structural rather than interpersonal cohesion. Stressing structural or task cohesion over interpersonal cohesion is way to keep group members focused on the larger objectives of the group rather than personal allegiances. Such an emphasis can reduce the reliance on friendship ties and focus it on the task at hand. In addition to eliminating extraneous socializing and other possible obstacles, this can also result in perspectives on the group's task that are valuable. Appoint a devil's advocate. Ensuring that there's someone in the group whose job is to bring up opposing ideas creates a structure that naturally diffuses the insularity inherent in groupthink dynamics. It is important to rotate who plays the role of devil's advocate so that no one particular person appears to be a consistent dissenter, which can breed resentment of that person in the group. Despite the loyalty to proven leaders, it's a good idea to rotate group leadership whenever practical as well. For example, many school districts rotate principals every few years. Just as friction is required to produce pearls, criticism of current business practices can often lead to important improvements. Bring in outside experts. Invite outside experts to group meetings to evaluate information, the realism of group goals, and plans for action. Encourage group members to foster outside contacts as well. Consultants, and other outside experts, not only bring a fresh perspective on various practices, they may have experience from similar situations that they can effectively exploit to improve this group's performance. Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] Summary We've now covered cohesion and group influence because these two sets of processes can dramatically influence the tenor of group decision making and performance. During this chapter we have discussed and reviewed topics concerning social facilitation, the effects of situations, social loafing, decision making, and group think. Continue to study these topics and to discuss them with co-workers or group members so that you raise their awareness and promote continual learning. Descriptions of the types of decision making and performance prepare us for our next topic, which is group leadership. The effectiveness of different styles of leadership often depends on the goals, tasks, and structure of the group. What Did We Discover? Diversity in groups can introduce new and valuable perspectives. Decision schemes must be tailored to the group and that group's specific goals. Choosing an appropriate approach to decisions and to how groups are structured are both crucial to the group's success. The conformity of groupthink is a genuine challenge, but an effective manager can develop techniques to eliminate or minimize its threat. Social loafing is, to some extent, inevitable, but groups can themselves generate ways of preventing it from interfering with accomplishing their goals. Business Application Exercises 1. Imagine you are in a business group where one of the members insists on doing most of the talking but all his talk does not add much substance to the discussion. What can you and the other members of the group do to keep the damage done to a minimum? 2. What group or groups have you been in where groupthink became an obstacle? What might an effective manager do to remind group members to resist succumbing to the pressures to conform? 3. Recall a group in which you were asked to make a decision (or imagine being in such a group). What are the pressures in place for that group to make too risky a decision? What are the pressures in place for that group to make too conservative a decision? How might you, if you were leading this group, try to avoid these two extremes? 4. Give an example you have seen of social loafing. If you were managing a group, how might you approach the person engaging in this behavior, in order to bring it to the worker's attention and, ideally, eliminate it? Key Terms additive tasks compensatory tasks compresence compromise averaging Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] conjunctive tasks decision schemes disjunctive tasks "eureka" situation rule group polarization horse trading implicit consensus process loss procrastination relaxation response Ringelmann effect risky shift social combination theory social facilitation social loafing START model subtasks theory of expectation truth-supported wins unitary or co-active tasks Related Web Links Motivating Employees http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/may2008/sb20080523_761806.htm Decision Making by Committee http://articles.practice.findlaw.com/2007/Jul/30/301.html Embracing the Feminine in the Workplace http://www.articlesbase.com/careers-articles/embracing-the-feminine-in-the-workplace-53802.html A Brief History of Groupthink Chapter 08 file:///Z|/Production/Flying%20Messiahs/Achives/MGT%20415/ePub%20Final/OEBPS/chapter_08.html[3/5/2012 9:08:06 AM] http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/pdfs/BRIEF-HISTORY_GROUPTHINK.pdf Social Loafing http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/social_loafing.htm Step-by-Step Brainstorming http://www.jpb.com/creative/brainstorming.php Importance of Diversity in the Workplace http://www.leadingtoday.org/Onmag/2005%20Archives/may05/ak-may05.html Group Dynamics Activities http://www.has.vcu.edu/group/acts.htm