gra 6820 the sociology of decision making (harrison, ch.7)

The Sociology of Decision-Making

GRA 6820Strategic Choice

1

GRA 6820

The Sociology of Decision Making

(Harrison, Ch.7)



2

Some thoughts from last time:

Problem solving styles

S T S F N F N T

I J ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

I P ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

E P ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

E J ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ



3

I – S Types

ISTJSerious, quiet, earn success by concentration and thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact, logical, realistic, and dependable. See to it that everything is well organized. Take responsibility. Make up their own minds as to what should be accomplished and work toward it steadily, regardless of protests or distractions.

ISFJQuiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Work devotedly to meet their obligations. Lend stability to any project or group. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. May need time to master technical subjects, as their interests are usually not technical. Patient with detail and routine. Loyal, considerate, concerned with how other people feel.

ISTPCool onlookers – quiet, reserved, observing and analyzing life with detached curiosity and unexpected flashes of original humor. Usually interested in impersonal principles, cause and effect, how and why things work. Exert themselves no more than they think necessary, because any waste of energy would be inefficient.

ISFPRetiring, quietly friendly, sensitive, kind, modest about their abilities. Shun disagreements, do not force their opinions or values upon others. Usually do not care to lead but are often loyal followers. Often relaxed aout getting things done, because they enjoy the present moment and do not want to spoil it by undue haste or exertion.

SENSINGIN

TR

OV

ER

TS



4

I – N Types

INFJSucceed by perserverence, originality and desire to do whatever is needed or wanted. Put their best effortsinto their work. Quietly forceful, conscientious, concerned for others. Respected for their firm principles. Likely to be honored and followed for their clear convictions as to how best to serve the common good.

INTJUsually have original minds and great drive for their own ideas and purposes. In fields that appeal to them, they have a fine power to organize a job and carry it through with or without help. Skeptical, critical, independent, determined, often stubborn. Must learn to yield less important points in order to win the most important.

INFPFull of enthusiasms and loyalties, but seldom talk of these until they know you well. Care about learning, ideas, language, and independent projects of their own. Tend to undertake too much, then somehow get it done. Friendly, but often too absorbed in what they are doing to be sociable. Little concerned with possessions or physical surroundings

INTPQuiet, reserved, impersonal. Enjoy especially theoretical or scientific subjects. Logical to the point of hair splitting. Usually interested mainly in ideas, with little liking for parties or small talk. Tend to have sharply defined interests. Need careers where some strong interests can be used and useful.

INTR

OV

ER

TSINTUITIVE



5

E – S Types

ESTPMatter-of-fact, do not worry or hurry, enjoy whatever comes along. Tend to like mechanical things and sports, with friends on the side. May be a bit blunt or insensitive. Adaptable, tolerant, generally conservative in values. Dislike long explanations. Are best with real things that can be worked, handled, taken apart or put together.

ESFPOutgoing, easygoing, accepting, friendly, ,enjoy everything and make things more fun for others by their enjoyment. Like sports and making things. Knows what’s going on and join in eagerly. Find remembering facts easier than mastering theories. Are best in situations that need sound common sense and practical ability with people as well as with things.

ESTJPractical, realistic, matter-of-fact, with a natural head for business or mechanics. Not interested in subjects they see no use for, but can apply themselves when necessary. Like to organize and run activities. May make good administrators, especially if they can remember to consider othersæ’ feelings and points of view.

ESFJWarm-hearted, talkative, popular, conscientious, born cooperators, active committee members. Need harmony and may be good at creating it. Always doing something nice for someone. Work best with encouragement and praise. Little interest in abstract thinking or technical subjects. Main interest is in things that directly and visibly affect people’s lives.

SENSING

EX

TR

AV

ER

TS



6

E – N Types

ENFPWarmly enthusiastic, high-spirited, ingenious, imaginative. Able to do almost anything that interests them. Quick with a solution for any difficulty and ready to help anyone with a problem. Often rely on their ability to improvise instead of preparing in advance. Can usually find compelling reasons for whatever they want.

ENTPQuick, ingenious, good at many things. Stimulating company, alert and outspoken. May argue for fun on either side of a question. Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems, but may neglect routineassignments. Apt to turn to one new interest after another. Skillful in finding logical reasons for what they want.

ENFJResponsive and responsible. Generally feel real concern for what others think or want, and try to handle things with due regard for other person’s feelings. Can present a proposal or lead a group discussion with ease and tact. Sociable, popular, sympathetic. Responsive to praise and criticism.

ENTJHearty, frank, decisive, leaders in activities. Usually good in anything that requires reasoning and intelligent talk, such as public speaking. Are usually well-informed and enjoy adding to their fund of knowledge. May sometimes be more positive and confident than their experience in an area warrants.

INTUITIVEEX

TR

AV

ER

TS



7

Why we need each other (1)

• Feelers need Thinkers– To examine, analyze and organize.

– To stand against opposing people, or to fire people if necessary.

– To change, reform, or withdraw priviledges.

– To maintain policy.

• Thinkers need Feelers– To convey how others feel.

– To persuade other to solve problems.

– To help people understand one another’s views.

– To build support for a system.



8

Why we need each other (2)• Intuitives need Sensers

– To notice essential facts.

– To point out prolems.

– To offer illustrations based on experience.

– To point out assets and liabilities in the here and now.

– To keep track of details.

• Sensers need Intuitives– To see possibilities in the future.

– To plan and prepare.

– To develop new ideas and systems.

– To solve problems creatively and ingeneously.

– To maintain enthusiasm.



9

The perfect problem-solver

SENSE: Collect data

with all 5 senses

SENSE: Collect data

with all 5 senses

INTUITION: Look for patterns,

inferences, relationships

INTUITION: Look for patterns,

inferences, relationships

THINKING: Logically analyze data, patterns, inferences to

reach conclusion

THINKING: Logically analyze data, patterns, inferences to

reach conclusion

FEELING: Evaluate impact of

solution on stakeholders inside and outside

the organization

FEELING: Evaluate impact of

solution on stakeholders inside and outside

the organization



10

Overview of chapter 7

• Profile of a group

• Theories of group behavior

• Group norms and conformity

• Group structure

• Group communication

• Characteristics of effective groups

• Groupthink

• Group decision making perspectives

• Group decision making profiles



11

Definitions• Sociology

– The scientific study of society and human (decision making) behavior.

• Sociological perspective

– An approach that seeks to understand human (decision making) behavior by placing it within a broader social context:

• Groups and teams

• Organizations

• Societies



12

Limits to team learningDegree of

collaborative design

Shared vision

Joint experimentation

Willingness for public reflection

Tendency to generate shared

insight

Expectations

Fear of failure

Blame or defensive behaviors

Interpreting actions as “failures”

Number of diverse

viewpoints

Potential for conflict

Level of trust

Conflict avoidance behaviors

++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

Willingness toCommunicate

Willingness toCommunicate

CollaborativeLearning

CollaborativeLearning

InterpretingActions

InterpretingActions

DefensiveBehaviors

DefensiveBehaviors

+

B3

R1

B4B2



13



14

Classification of collective decision theories

TheoreticalPerspective

Individual Preferences

Information

Group Decision

TheoryDifferent

Not considered

Team Theory Same Considered

n-Person Game Theory

Different Considered



15

Decision

Communication

Information Systems

Casting

Scoping

Nested hierarchy of team design problems



16

Why do groups fail...?(or, when 2 + 2 = 3)

• Ineffective leadership skills

• Lack of rigorous methods

• Wrong group structure

• Group member homogeneity



17

Factors affecting group judgment

• Input variables

• Conformity

• Polarization



18

Input variables affecting group processes

• Task norms.

• Process norms.

• Group size.

• Group communication patterns.

• Perceived member status.

• Individual personality characteristics.

• Group experience.



19

Conformity

• Tendency for individual responses to conform more closely to those of the group after exposure to the group’s opinion.

• Factors affecting strength of the effect.– Response uncertainty.– Concern for self image.– To avoid possible censure.

• Classic example - Groupthink.



20

Conformity and consensus

• When consensus is the goal, there is additional stimulus to assent to the group’s position even though one may personally disagree with it.

• Group’s decision rule.

• Factors affecting weight given to individuals’ opinions...

• Quality of resulting consensus...



21

Conformity (likhet, ensrettethet)

Definition:– A change in a person’s behavior or opinions as

a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people.

Dilemma of being a social animal…– Resultant tension between:

1. Values associated with Individuality.

2. Values associated with Conformity.

The ”Establishment” tends to like Conformists better than Non-conformists.

The ”Establishment” tends to like Conformists better than Non-conformists.



22

Conformity

• Variables that affect conformity behaviorWhether the majority opinion unanimous or not.

Kind of person the individual is (low in self-esteem, for example).

Who is in the reference group.

• Group influence increases if…

– It is composed of experts.

– The members are important to the individual.

– The members are comparable to the individual



23

Group cohesiveness:

Causes and consequences

Gro

up

Co

he

siv

en

es

s

Causes Consequences

Severe initiation

External threat

Lots of time together

Small groups

History of success

Enjoy group membership

Participate in group activitiesAccept group’s goals

Low absenteeism and turnover

Lose sight of goalsMay work against organizational interests

Positive

Negative



24

Conformity in extremis: Groupthink

Observable behaviors

* Incomplete statement of objectives or problem definition.

* Incomplete search foralternatives.

* Failure to reconsider rejected alternatives.

* Poor information search.

* Lack of critical thinking due to biases.

* Failure to re-examine risks of the first choice.

* Failure to develop acontingency plan.

Observable behaviors

* Incomplete statement of objectives or problem definition.

* Incomplete search foralternatives.

* Failure to reconsider rejected alternatives.

* Poor information search.

* Lack of critical thinking due to biases.

* Failure to re-examine risks of the first choice.

* Failure to develop acontingency plan.

COMPULSIVE NEED FOR

AGREEMENT

COMPULSIVE NEED FOR

AGREEMENT

Group leadership and structural problems* Group is insulated.* Ineffective leadership* Wrong structure.* Lack of rigorous methods.* Similar group members.

Group leadership and structural problems* Group is insulated.* Ineffective leadership* Wrong structure.* Lack of rigorous methods.* Similar group members.

Situational factors * High stress. * Low expectations. * Recent failure. * Difficulty with the problem.

Situational factors * High stress. * Low expectations. * Recent failure. * Difficulty with the problem.

Tight knit, cohesive group

Tight knit, cohesive group



25

Polarization

• Reported tendency for average group members’ responses to shift further in the direction of the group’s initially dominant tendency after interaction and discussion.

• Associated primarily with attitudes and preferences.

• Processes leading to polarization...– Information effect.

– Predominant influence of argument and facts.

– Active espousal of a position.



26

Dysfunctional group behaviors

• Anchoring Effect

• Inequality of Participation

PercentParticipation

Status“Old hands”Extroverts

“Newcomers”Introverts

LowHigh

Causes...• Deference to seniors• Have less to offer• Less data• Wrong group structure



27

Self-justification (selvberettigelse)

• Definition– Actions taken by people to justify or explain

their behaviors to convince themselves (and others) that the selected action was logical and reasonable.

• Basic process – Cognitive Dissonance– A state of tension that occurs when an

individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.

– An unpleasant experience that people try to reduce.



28

Self ju

stifica

tion

– an e

xam

ple

Washington Post News Service, Novem

ber, 1971



29

Theory of cognitive dissonance

• Man is not a rational animal.

• Man as a rationalizing animal.

• People are not motivated so much to be right – rather, he/she is motivated to believe that he or she is right (wise, decent, good…)

”It’s better to look good than to be good…” Fernando Lamas

”It’s better to look good than to be good…” Fernando Lamas



30

Aspects of dissonance• As a consequence of making a decision

– Importance of irrevocability– Immoral behavior

• Justification of effort– Dissonance theory predicts that if a person

works hard to achieve a goal, that goal will be more attractive to him than for someone who achieves the same goal with little or no effort.

• Justification of cruelty– Why do ”good” people inflict pain on others?– And how do they deal with it?



31

Dissonance reduction and rational behavior

• Dissonance reducing behavior– Negative consequences:

• Maladaptive, keeps us from learning important facts or finding real solutions

– Positive consequences: • Ego defensive behavior, maintains positive self image.

• Results from the lab…– People do not remember in rational-functional manner.– Remember plausible arguments for personal position– Remember implausible arguments in agreement with

opposing position.

Selective Perception



32

Prejudice (fordom)• Definition

– A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group based on generalizations derived from faulty or incomplete information.

• Closely related to stereotyping.– An over-generalization – attribution of identical characteristics to

any person in a group, regardless of actual variation within the group members.

– Done all the time, can have either positive or negative connotations.

• Characteristics– Most stereotypes are not based on valid experiences.– Hearsay or images from the media are influential.– Oten the stereotypes are constructed from pure fantasy to justify

prejudices and cruelties.



33

Causes of prejudice• Economic and political competition.

– Given limited resources, the dominant group might try to exploit a minority group in order to gain a material advantage.

– Prejudice tends to increase in difficult times.

• Displaced aggression.– Scapegoating.

– Focusing aggression on visible and relatively powerless groups that are disliked to begin with.

– Examples?



34

Causes of prejudice (continued)

• Personality needs.

– Some research has shown that there are certain personality types that are predisposed to being prejudiced, not because of external factors.

– Implications for management?

• Conformity to existing social norms.

– Pressure to conform can be very strong.

– Examples?



35

Responses to social influence• Compliance (imøtekommelighet)

– Mode of behavior of a person who is motivated to gain rewards or avoid punishment.

– Lasts as long as reward/punishment exists.

• Identification– Response brought about by individual’s desire to be like

the influencer.

• Internalization– Most permanent, deeply rooted response to social

influence; reward for the belief is intrinsic.

– The behavior becomes independent of the source and can be hard to change.



36

Group processes

• Interacting group

• Nominal group technique

• Delphi group



37

Interacting group characteristics

• Most common group structure.

• Problem statement by the group leader.

• Unstructured discussion.

Consequences for problem solving...



38

Interactive group:

Disadvantages• Lack of structure.

• High variability in leaders and members.

• Effort used to maintain socio-emotional relationships.

• Generalization leads to low quality.

• Reactive search behavior, short focus, task avoidance, tangential discussions.

• Dominant individuals control the agenda.

• Group norms emphasize conforming behavior.

• Tendency to conclude without a sense of closure.



39

The Nominal Group technique

4. Each idea is discussed, clarified and evaluated by the group.

4. Each idea is discussed, clarified and evaluated by the group.

3. Each participants’ ideas are presented, one at a time, and recorded.

3. Each participants’ ideas are presented, one at a time, and recorded.

6. Highest ranking idea is taken as the group’s decision.

6. Highest ranking idea is taken as the group’s decision.

5. Participants privately rank the ideas in their order of preference.

5. Participants privately rank the ideas in their order of preference.

2. Participants privately write down ideas about problem solving.

2. Participants privately write down ideas about problem solving.

1. A small group identifies the issue and receives instructions.

1. A small group identifies the issue and receives instructions.



40

Nominal group:

Advantages• Consistency in decision making.

• Balanced concern for socio-emotional and task instrumental roles.

• Opportunity to think and write ideas increases tendency for focused ideas of higher quality.

• Tolerance for “off the wall” ideas.

• Structure forces equality of participation.

• Higher sense of closure, greater feeling of satisfaction, greater willingness to work towards implementation.



41

The Delphi technique

5. Responses shared with all others

5. Responses shared with all others

3. Experts record solutions andrecommendations

3. Experts record solutions andrecommendations

1. Enlistcooperationof experts

1. Enlistcooperationof experts

2. Present the issue tothe experts

2. Present the issue tothe experts

6. Experts comment onothers’ ideas andpropose a solution

6. Experts comment onothers’ ideas andpropose a solution

4. Experts’ responsesare compiled andreproduced

4. Experts’ responsesare compiled andreproduced

If consensus is reached…

If no consensus is reached…

7. Solutions are compiled7. Solutions are compiled

ISSUE

Solution



42

The Delphi method:

Characteristics

• Physically dispersed.

• Systematic collection and combination of information.

• Consensus achieved through feedback.



43

The Delphi method

• Isolated generation of ideas.

• Problem complexity addressed in the process.

• Proactive search behavior.

• Anonymity and isolation.

• Lack of socio-emotional satisfaction.

• Possible communication and interpretation problems.

• Conflicting and incompatible ideas are resolved by pooling.

• No face-to-face problem solving to resolve conflicts.

DisadvantagesAdvantages



44

Dimensions for comparing group processes

• Overall methodology

• Role orientations

• Relative quantity of ideas

• Search behavior

• Nominal behavior

• Equality of participation

• Problem solving methods

• Closure decision process

• Resources utilized

• Time requirements



45

Overall methodology

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Unstructured face-to-face group meeting.

High flexibility.

High variability in behavior of groups.

Unstructured face-to-face group meeting.

High flexibility.

High variability in behavior of groups.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Structured face-to-face group meeting.

Low flexibility.

Low variability in behavior of groups.

Structured face-to-face group meeting.

Low flexibility.

Low variability in behavior of groups.

Delphi groupsDelphi groups

Structured series of questionnaires and feedback reports.

Low variability in respondent behavior.

Structured series of questionnaires and feedback reports.

Low variability in respondent behavior.



46

Role orientation

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Socio-emotional.

Group maintenance focus.

Socio-emotional.

Group maintenance focus.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Balanced focus on social maintenance and task role.

Balanced focus on social maintenance and task role.


Task instrumental focus.

Task instrumental focus.



47

Relative quantity of ideas

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Low.

Focused “rut” effect.

Low.

Focused “rut” effect.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Higher.Independent writing.

Hitch-hiking round robin brainstorming.

Higher.Independent writing.

Hitch-hiking round robin brainstorming.


High.

Isolated writing of ideas.

High.

Isolated writing of ideas.



48

Search behavior

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Reactive search.

Short issue focus.

Task avoidance tendency.

New social knowledge.

Reactive search.

Short issue focus.

Task avoidance tendency.

New social knowledge.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Proactive search.

Extended issue focus.

High task centeredness.

New social and task knowledge.

Proactive search.

Extended issue focus.


New social and task knowledge.


Proactive search.

Controlled issue focus.


New task knowledge.

Proactive search.

Controlled issue focus.


New task knowledge.



49

Normative behavior

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Conformity pressures inherent in face-to-face discussions.

Conformity pressures inherent in face-to-face discussions.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Tolerance for nonconformity through independent search and choice activity.

Tolerance for nonconformity through independent search and choice activity.


Freedom to not conform through isolated anonymity.

Freedom to not conform through isolated anonymity.



50

Equality of participation

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Member dominance in search, evaluation and choice phases.

Member dominance in search, evaluation and choice phases.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Member equality in search and choice phases.

Member equality in search and choice phases.


Respondent equalityin pooling of independent judgments.

Respondent equalityin pooling of independent judgments.



51

Method of problem solving

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Person centered.

Smoothing over and withdrawal.

Person centered.

Smoothing over and withdrawal.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Issue centered.

Confrontation and problem solving.

Issue centered.

Confrontation and problem solving.


Issue centered.

Majority rule of pooled independent judgments.

Issue centered.

Majority rule of pooled independent judgments.



52

Decision process closure

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

High lack of closure.

Low feeling of accomplishment.

High lack of closure.

Low feeling of accomplishment.

Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Lower lack of closure.

Higher feeling of accomplishment.

Lower lack of closure.

Higher feeling of accomplishment.


Low lack of closure.

Medium feeling of accomplishment.

Low lack of closure.

Medium feeling of accomplishment.



53

Resource utilization

Interacting groups

Interacting groups

Low administrative time and costs.

High participant time and cost.

Low administrative time and costs.


Nominal groups

Nominal groups

Medium administrative time, cost and preparation.


Medium administrative time, cost and preparation.



High administrative.High administrative.

gra 6820 the sociology of decision making (harrison, ch.7)

Documents