GROUPTHINK

And its impact on decision making Presentation by: Iman M.Ahmed Rawda Hassan Dai Rowida A. Abd/ALrahman

GROUP DECISION MAKING Unique features: -Social influence (acting collectively). -Analyze problems/situation. -Consider alternative action. -Select the most probable one.

GROUP DECISION MAKING

Decision making (D.M) is a vital component of small business success. Many Organizational decisions are made by group that can be defined as “two or more interacting and interdependent individuals who come together to achieve a particular goals.

Reasons behind D.M:

-Synergy (mutual influences and encouragement in the group.-To gain commitment to a decision.

GROUP DECISION MAKING

Advantages:-More knowledge and information.-Increased acceptance of, and commitment to the decision.-greater understanding of decision .

Disadvantages:-Pressure within the group to conform and fit in (group think).-Domination of the group by one forceful member or a dominant elite.-Time consuming.

GROUP THINK Defined as:“ a type of conformity

in which group members withhold different or unpopular views in order to give the appearance of agreement”

“ A psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses disagreement and prevent appraisal alternative in cohesive decision making” Janis, I.L.( 1972), p. 9

GROUP THINK

“a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality, testing and moral judgment resulting from in-group pressures.”, Robbins & Coulter (2002),

GROUP THINK

Janis’s Groupthink model

Cohesive Group

Structural faults

Insulation

Lack of impartial leadership

Lack of decision method

Homogeneous members

Provocative context

External threat

Low self esteem from previous failure

Concurrence seeking

Poor decision outcome

Source: Janis,I.L.,(1972); (1982). P.244

Symptoms of defective decision making:

•Incomplete survey of alternatives

·Incomplete survey of objectives·Failure to examine risk of preferred choice·Poor information search·Selective information bias·Failure to workout contingency plan

Groupthink symptom:

1. Overestimation of group: Illusion of invulnerability; Belief in own morality

2. Closed-Mindedness:

Collective rationalization; Stereotyping of out- groups

3. Uniformity pressures:

1Self Censorship2Illusion of unanimity 3Direct Pressure4Mind -guards

AntecedentsObservable consequences

COHESIVE GROUP

Group cohesiveness is:” the degree to which members are attracted to one another and share the group goals”, Robins….et.al, (2005) p.343. It is the “interpersonal glue” that makes members of a group stick together” Nelson & Quick (1996), p.139.

Janis’s Groupthink model

Cohesive Group

Structural faults

Insulation

Lack of impartial leadership

Lack of decision method

Homogeneous members

Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

Antecedents

•Binding & filling of the group•Directive, subjective and biased.• No procedures for developing and evaluating alternatives.•Tendancy to avoid conflict and to demand conformity.

Janis’s Groupthink model

Cohesive Group

Structural faults

Insulation

Lack of impartial leadership

Lack of decision method

Homogeneous members

Provocative context

External threat

Low self esteem from previous failure

Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

Antecedents

Leading to high stress

Janis’s Groupthink model

Cohesive Group

Structural faults

Insulation

Lack of impartial leadership

Lack of decision method

Homogeneous members

Provocative context

External threat

Low self esteem from previous failure

Concurrence seeking

Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

Antecedents

These conditions cause members to prefer concurrence or consensus in decisions and to fail to evaluate one another’s suggestions critically. That is the tendency of group think.

Janis’s Groupthink model

Cohesive Group

Structural faults

Insulation

Lack of impartial leadership

Lack of decision method

Homogeneous members

Provocative context

External threat

Low self esteem from previous failure

Concurrence seeking

Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

Groupthink symptom:

1. Overestimation of group: Illusion of invulnerability; Belief in own morality

2. Closed-Mindedness:

Collective rationalization; Stereotyping of out- groups

3. Uniformity pressures:

1Self Censorship2Illusion of unanimity 3Direct Pressure4Mind -guards

AntecedentsObservable consequences

OVERESTIMATION OF GROUP

Illusion of invulnerability: Group members feel they are above criticism. This symptoms leads to excessive optimism and risk tacking.Belief in own morality: Group members feel they are moral in their actions and therefore above reproach or blame. This symptom leads the group to ignore the ethical implications of their decisions.

CLOSED-MINDEDNESS:

Collective rationalization: Group members make up explanations for their decisions to make them appear rational and correct. Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. The results are that other alternatives are not considered, and there is an unwillingness to reconsider the groups. Stereotyping of out- groups: Competitors are stereotyped as evil or stupid. This leads the group to underestimate its opposition.

•Self Censorship: Members do not express their doubts about the course of action. This prevents critical analysis of the decisions.

•Illusion of unanimity: Group members believe there is unanimous agreement on the decisions. Silence is misconstrued as consent.

UNIFORMITY PRESSURES:

•Direct Pressure: Peer pressure. Any member who express doubt or concerns are pressured by other group members, who question their loyalty.

•Mind –guards: Some members take it upon themselves to protect the group from negative feedback. Group members are thus shielded from information that might lead them to question their actions.

UNIFORMITY PRESSURES:

Janis’s Groupthink model

Cohesive Group

Structural faults

Insulation

Lack of impartial leadership

Lack of decision method

Homogeneous members

Provocative context

External threat

Low self esteem from previous failure

Concurrence seeking

Poor decision outcome

Source: Janis,I.L.,(1972); (1982). P.244

Symptoms of defective decision making:

•Incomplete survey of alternatives

·Incomplete survey of objectives·Failure to examine risk of preferred choice·Poor information search·Selective information bias·Failure to workout contingency plan

Groupthink symptom:

1. Overestimation of group: Illusion of invulnerability; Belief in own morality

2. Closed-Mindedness:

Collective rationalization; Stereotyping of out- groups

3. Uniformity pressures:

1Self Censorship2Illusion of unanimity 3Direct Pressure4Mind -guards

AntecedentsObservable consequences

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?????

PREVENTION OF GROUPTHINK

*Each member should be assume the role of critical evaluator who actively voices objections or doubts.

*Have the leader avoid stating his/has position on the issue prior to the group.

Create several groups that work on the decision simultaneously.

*Bring in outside experts to evaluate the group process.

PREVENTION OF GROUPTHINK

*Appointed a “devil’s advocate” to question the group’s course of action consistently.

*Evaluate the competitions carefully, posing as many different motivations and intentions as possible.

PREVENTION OF GROUPTHINK

PREVENTION OF GROUPTHINK

*Once consensus is reached, encourage the group to rethink its position by reexamining the alternatives.

*Stimulating conflict.

GENERATE ALTERNATIVES OR TECHNIQUES

Brainstorming Dialectic Inquiry Devil’s advocacy Nominal Group

Technique Delphi technique

BRAINSTORMING

•Is a technique for generating alternatives.

•Is relatively unstructured.

•The situation or problem described in details.

• Group members are encouraged to generate alternative and to build upon the suggestions of others considering imagination.

Limitation and difficulties of brainstorming:

•Although, brainstorming is good to generate alternatives, but does not offer much in the way of process for evaluating alternative or the selecting of proposed course of action.

* Fear from judgment and criticism.

DIALECTICAL INQUIRY:• Dialectical Inquiry is a debate between

two opposing sets of recommendations. • It is a constructive approach.• It brings out the benefits and limitations

of both sets of ideas.

The Dialectic Decision Method1. A proposed course of action is generated

2. Assumption underlying the proposal are identified

3. A conflicting counterproposal is generated based on different assumptions

4. Advocates of each position present and debate the merits of their proposals before key decision makers

5. The decision to adopt either position, or some other position, e.g., a compromise, is taken

6. The decision is monitored

*Similarly, in the Devil’s Advocacy decision method, is a group or individual that given the role of critic*The devil’s advocate has the task of coming up with the potential problems of proposed decision. *These techniques help organizations avoid costly mistakes in decision making by identifying potential pitfalls in advance.

DEVIL`S ADVOCATE

A Devil’s Advocate Decision Programs

1. A proposed course of action is generated

2. A devil’s advocate (individual or group) is assigned to criticize the proposal

3. The critique is presented to key decision makers

4. Any additional information relevant to the issues is gathered

5. The decision to adopt, modify, or discontinue the proposed course of action is taken

6. The decision is normal

THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

A structured approach to decision making that focuses on generating alternatives and choosing one is called nominal group technique (NGT

THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

A small group of 4-5 people gathers around a table. Leader identifies judgment issue and gives participants procedural instructions.

Participants write down all ideas that occur to them, keeping their lists private at this point. Creativity is encouraged during this phase.

Leader asks each participant to present ideas and writes them on a blackboard or flipchart, continuing until all ideas have been recorded.

Participants discuss each other’s ideas, clarifying, expanding, and evaluating them as a group.

Participants rank ideas privately in their own personal order and preference.

The idea that ranks highest among the participants is adopted as the group’s judgment.

DELPHI TECHNIQUES

*The Delphi technique adopted to gather the judgments of experts for use in decision making.

*Experts at remote locations respond to a questionnaire. A coordinator summarizes the responses to the questionnaire.

•The summary is sent back to the experts. •The experts then rate the various alternatives generated. The coordinator tabulates the results. •The Delphi technique is valuable in its ability to generate a number of independent judgments without the requirement of a face-to-face meeting.

CONCLUSION :-There are various factors contribute to effectiveness of group decision making . This is why no one can say “a group decision making is always better or is always worse” than individual decision making. -For example a multinational companies work in external and internal environment , affected by these factors both positively and negatively.- Recently, most organizations are tend to turn groups into effective teams.

-A work team is a formal groups made up of interdependent individuals who are responsible for the attainment of a goal.-Reasons behind uses of work team increases flexibility.

creates esprit de corps. increases performance. take advantage of workforce diversity. allows managers to do more strategic

management.

END

THANK YOU