In recent months, the management team of this organization has been working tirelessly to diminish biases among group members and to establish a proposal focusing on the elimination of in-store employee theft. This criminal activity associated with inventory shrinkage and major revenue loss has proved to be a detriment to our company, but thankfully, is now in the process of being reversed. The success of our proposal resulted from the dynamics of an open discussion format in our group setting and the determination of each member to make the necessary modifications and improvements for this company. In the following article, I will review and discuss the systematic procedure of decision-making utilized by each member and the obstacles encountered so that others involved in management can replicate the knowledge and experiences acquired throughout this process. The panel successfully achieved a consensus decision by unofficially appointing a permissive leader and by relying on the positive effects of conformity. The leader encouraged each subordinate to take part in decision-making, giving him or her a considerable degree of autonomy in completing routine work activities. Once key components were decided upon, group members proceeded to conform to those judgments in order to begin the experimental phase of action. Individuals were given a deadline to present their contributions for the project, which allowed the opportunity of complete participation, as well as emphasizing the importance of discipline among management. The required process for group decision-making noticeably and significantly differs from the format of individual decision-making. Many individuals can be relatively ineffective or incorrect when attempting to form a decision. They may become victims of common traps such as overconfidence, self-fulfilling prophecies, and behavioral traps. They are also vulnerable to satisficing, attribution theory, and other biases experienced regularly. However, when participating with peers, many become more effective and efficient. There are greater percentages of correct answers, and most members enjoy the positive atmosphere and camaraderie experienced within the group setting. Although group interaction allows for a more dynamic outcome, there are still many biases associated with this system of decision-making. While avoiding many of these unnecessary biases, such as groupthink and group polarization, our management team unfortunately fell victim to others. To deter the effects of biased judgments, many members privately discussed techniques, and then presented that information, thus utilizing the benefits of subgroups. Also, each member avoided over zealousness of personal opinions, thereby eliminating group polarization and the choice shift phenomenon.
In several cases, folks will set aside their personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. Group-think influences police officer’s rationalizations for some behaviors by preventing members of the group from reconsidering their beliefs while causing them to ignore warning signs. Group-think tends to occur more in situations where group members are very similar to one another and is more likely to take place when a powerful and charismatic leader commands the group. Situations in which the group is placed under extreme stress or where moral dilemmas exist also increase the occurrence of groupthink (Haberfeld et al.2014,
Turman, P. (October 13, 2000b). Group Decision Making & Problem Solving: Group Communication [Lecture] Cedar Falls, IA. University of Northern Iowa, Communication Studies Department.
According to Schermerhorn, Osborn, Uhl-Bien and Hunt (2012), "it used to be that group work was confined in concept and practice to those circumstances in which members could meet face to face” (p.151). Rational Decision-Making is a five-step process that starts with recognition and definition of the
During Tuckman’s forming stage, it is often a period of uncertainty and confusion, as the group members begin to create ground rules, test the boundaries of their behaviour and begin to become orientated with the task (Bonebright, 2010, p. 113). During the forming stage the activities relinquished each of our personal strengths and weaknesses. A positive to knowing this information is whilst working in a group there is a variety of different strengths and weaknesses, in the case of our group, creating an excellent balance in most aspects. For example, a personal weakness of my own is that I can tend to be unorganised. However another group member, Amy, is extremely organised and can effectively keep the group tasks and timelines of due tasks in order. Whilst completing the questions within the activities, we begin to discuss in depth each of the answers. For each question, we would allow for further discussion, and gave each of the group members the opportunity to give their personal opinions and beliefs and be heard. Through the broad and open discussions, it was found that a high number of our opinions concerning working in a group environment, were quite similar. As a whole these activities asked each group member to be open, truthful and discuss personal opinions that may not always be heard. The prospect of knowing everyone is the group’s
In the workplace, the team leader's job is to make decisions that benefit the team and the whole company. This places them with a lot of responsibility. They must contemplate the options and consciously select the decision-making strategy most appropriate for the circumstances in which the decision will be made and implemented. Often the decision-making style chosen is among the most significant roles of the project manager. Communication and interpersonal skills of the group members influence the decision. The incorrect approach can cause problems within the group. "Research conducted by Wheelen, Murphy, Tsumura and Kline (1998) demonstrates a clear correlation between positive group dynamics and team productivity". There are many decision-making strategies available. Three of the most common styles are when decisions are made by the group leader alone, decisions by the leader after group discussion, and consensus by the whole group.
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that 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 action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
In our reading this week, Tubbs wrote (2012): “Small group interaction must include decision-making techniques, discussions, an outlet for quiet members, time, and values to meet the needs of all different types of decision makers” (p. 285). My greatest take away is the reminder that we are all different and we should respect and embrace those differences. I am not sure how many times I have to cross this point for it to finally sink in my head.
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
Group decision making has many benefits for the individuals involved and the organization itself. In order for group decision making to be efficient, it is important for a creative environment to exist. “Creativity is the mental and social process used to generate ideas, concepts and associations that lead to the exploration of new ideas (May, 2011, para.3). This allows each employee to explore ideas and feel comfortable to share them without fear of rejection.
Groupthink is the psychological phenomenon in which groups working on a task think along the same lines which could have drastic results. It is the result of group polarization where discussions are enhance or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group. Therefore, if a group leans towards risky situation at the beginning of the discussion on average they will move toward an even riskier position. (Marks, 2015). The idea when everyone think the same no one is really thinking. The drastic outcomes result from people trying to avoid conflict with one another, being highly cohesive, and results is questionable decision making (Oliver, 2013). Houghton Mifflin publication of Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions
Indeed some research found that the team diversity have positive impact to decision making. For example, one of the research found that the diversity at educational level can positively influence the decision making and also affected on team performance (Simons). In addition, Dooley and Frywell illustrated that the discussion and argument was associated with quality decision making in U.S. hospital. However, some researches also demonstrated that the diversity in the team can have negative influence on decision making. For example, Sounder () found that, in diversity teams, because of the lots of difference between team members, sometimes its difficult to reach an agreement. Although, sometimes diversity in the team can improve the quality of decision making, it also increase the conflict within the team members, and impede the cooperation
Within the paper, both authors discuss how a leader or team can balance the need for open discussion early in the decision-making process with the need for unity at the end. By using an Inquiry style decision-making process, teams can openly express their own interest and ideas. The teams stay away from trying to persuade others to take any one individuals point of view, but to decide on what is the overall best course of action. This process allows the team to express their ideas without the bickering and fighting that comes with an Advocacy style process. The team stays unified and satisfied that their opinions were heard and put into consideration.
Baron, Robert S., Kerr, Norbert K., and Miller, Norman. Group process, Group Decision, Group Action. CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992. Pgs. 4, 61, 2, 140, 237, 140, 141, 7, 6
Working in groups is challenging at times. Other times it is very rewarding. We are so focused on life that we do not take time to reflect on things as much as we should. Being in a Groups class has opened my eyes to a whole new world. I have begun to question, explore, and even understand how things work. I even get how they work sometimes. Not only is there a process involved in making individual decisions, process is involved in group decisions as well. This paper attempts give insight into my reflection of my group decision process.
Several experiments and researches have been conducted that have focused on how people behave in groups. The findings have revealed that groups affect peoples’ attitudes, behavior and perceptions. Groups are essential for personal life, as well as in work life.