Decision making in an organization can either be done by individuals or groups. There is no rule of thumb to decide which method is preferable in all situations and generally the method chosen to make decision depends on a number of factors. For example, group decision making process usually consumes more time than individual process, but views the problem through different views which not only contributes to the accuracy of a decision but also increase the creative element.The decisions made by a group are likely to be accepted and supported as the group members actively participate in the decision making process.
Two set of activities are involved in making a decision. The first activity is to generate an idea. The second activity is to
…show more content…
It has been found to be useful in generating large pools of solutions in a short time span. It is also reported to be able to generate strategic insights and creative ideas.Secondly, often group decision making process is hindered by a phenomenon called groupthink, in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternate courses of action. It often happens when a member has doubts or different views from the majority of the group.The separation of idea generation from idea evaluation prevents this from happening. Thirdly, it involves participants from diverse fields to come together and discuss the problem that leads to better analysis and solutions that might not have been possible individually. Fourthly, due to the shared ownership of ideas it leads to greater acceptance. Instead ofindividual credit, the solution is …show more content…
It is a group decision making method in which individual members meet face to face to pool their judgments in a systematic but independent fashion. In this method, each participant individually writes down his or her ideas on the problem silently and no discussion is done in this phase. The term nominal is used because there is restricted communication between members, and even though they are in a ‘group’, they work individually. After the idea generation phase, each member presents his idea or is presented by the moderator to the group. The group then discusses all ideas, contribute to them and then evaluate it on the basis of pre-set criteria. Each participant then individually votes for the idea silently. This technique allows anonymity as well as provides structure to the
For example, if Lowes head manager tells each of its workers that they are going to only serve people who ask for help because he is tired of seeing time wasted. This manager is only going by his side of things. While step 7 is implemented it is not successfully used. While being used in the Lowes manner, “Implementing the Decision” as team to allow each hardware section to decide whether to ask each customer they see if they “need help,” or wait for the customers to ask the employees. Allowing for each team member to change methods and accomplish step 8 by “Evaluating the Decision.”
The main factor that may have affected our group and its overall unsuccessful journey to the summit is groupthink, which is decision making unconsciously influenced by other group members (Loughead, 2015b). Having just met our group members for the very first time, it was surprising how our team interacted with everyone, communicating and sharing their opinions freely. There was no one sitting there is silence or what appeared to be just agreeing with every decision. However, I wonder if the knowledge of how important and dangerous this journey was unconsciously prevented members from expressing their true thoughts or options in order to maintain our group cohesiveness and minimalize conflict. As a group, we collectively made decisions through discussion and problem solving.
Those who are excluded often feel extreme pressure to be accepted back into the group in order to escape their uncomfortable isolation. • Groups also often develop their own distribution of roles, with both leaders and followers. Other group members play either inhibiting roles, rejecting new ideas, or innovating roles, actively developing such ideas. • Another risk of groupthink, according to Janis, can be observed in groups that work together over long periods of time. In addition to reduced efficiency, they also demonstrate reduced “reality testing”, i.e., a distorted sense of reality.
While brainstorming “allows for spontaneous, creative, quick ideas/ suggestions” (Anderson, 1990, p.), the discussion is prone to drifting off tangent or being bullied by extroverts. Perhaps the initial ideas produced by the brainstorming could be given to the members where introverts and extroverts alike are provided an opportunity to provide in-depth feedback. Thus creating increased involvement, “eliminating interpersonal problems, and making solutions and predictions more accurate” (Bolland and Fletcher, 2011). Afterward, a meeting setup using the nominal group technique would help resolve any resolutions associated with the decision to be addressed by leadership or members involved with the suggestions and solutions.
Some techniques that leaders can use to make wise decisions include Aikido, SMART, DELPHI Analysis, SWOT Analysis, STAR, and the GROW approach. However, as the Coca-Cola case has demonstrated, poor decision-making techniques can have a negative impact on an organization's performance. In order to make judgments that are in line with the goals and objectives of the business, leaders must carefully weigh all of their options. Organizations can achieve long-term success and maximize their potential by doing this in today's dynamic business environment. Reference Barney, N. & Pratt, M. K. (March 2023).
Group think According to Janis, who coined the term; groupthink “occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (1972, p. 9) further group think often leads to a decrease in the mental efficacy perception of reality and moral judgement, as personages find themselves in a group system that seeks high cohesion and unanimity which delimits the motivation of the individual to realistically appraise alternate courses of action (Janis, 1972). A common trait of a collective experiencing this phenomenon, is an inclination to take irrational decision making in addition to members of the group being similar in background and further being insulated from external insight. Comparably the singularity of groupthink is present in the film 12 Angry Men, and appears anecdotally, early on the film, present in the expected unanimous vote of ‘guilty,’ that will send the defendant to the electric chair. Invulnerability Literature surrounding the concept of group think is greatly rooted in the writings of Janis.
Psychologist Irving Janis explained some alarmingly bad decisions made by governments and businesses coined the term "groupthink”, which he called "fiascoes.” He was particularly drawn to situations where group pressure seemed to result in a fundamental failure to think. Therefore, Janis further analyzed that it is a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members ' striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. According to Janis, groupthink is referred as the psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses disagreement and prevents the appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision-making groups.
Teams can create solutions to problems in shorter time than individuals can do on their own. A team’s ability to see the solution through its implementation with collaboration is critical for success. This increases quality of a product to negate problems as they occur (Kokemuller, 2010). Communication between team members increase allowing more understanding and ideas to emerge. Relationships are built giving team members a sense of purpose and the ability to communicate more freely.
In The Dangers of Groupthink, Naomi Karten provides the reader with a few of many examples on how they can avoid the dangerous phenomenon that is, Groupthink. Karten expresses her opinion by stating, “Diligently avoid a no-criticism culture and a no-criticism decision-making policy.” (The Danger of Groupthink, 2). Being able to avoid a nonconstructive environment is an extremely courageous step that can ultimately lead to one’s success. However, for one to achieve such a large task takes a tremendous effort, and requires one to place both their feelings and well being on the line.
In fact, we used each task to build on to the next. As stated before we worked together to put together rules that we all agreed to. What made that task come together was out O (open communication), L (listen to everyone ideas), and D (distributing work load evenly) of our acronym BOLD. While one person formatted our rules on the paper we was given the other members put together the creative ways it will be presented. When time was running out I decided to help my other group mate get the rest of our ideas on paper while the other two finished getting our props
Without a formal procedure, the contributory factors to the process are difficult to conclude. Preferences and values of decision-makers vary and are inconsistent. The discussion may be hindered and the effectiveness of the model is limited (Guy,
To form and sustain a group, few stages are required so that people will be able to see the progress as it goes on during the session. It might be seen as the long-winded method
In the organizational process model, it is imperative that decision makers weigh all aspect of their business. This decision making technique ensures every group member has equal input and encourages all participants to voice their opinion while preventing the domination of discussion of a single person. The lead facilitator of this technique would be the accounting manager since the decision will affect the financial state of the organization. It is assumed that important financial decisions concerning hiring more personnel to ensure the growth of the company would include the ideas of participant’s top managerial positions. Nominal group technique requires organizations to follow certain steps.
This means that having access to fair opinions is not always possible. The group may bring many greater alternatives, that may higher quality than individual. Then it is likely that the group will reach a superior problem solution than the individual finally. Group members can identify more perfect and possible solutions and recommendations through discussion.
Having an in-depth understanding of the decision making process is bound to be critical not only for the explanation of individual behavior but also for the behavior of complex and multi-layered organizations. There are both cognitive and social