How do groups make decisions?
In the last couple of blogs, after looking at personality types and working styles of the wide range of members potentially involved in a group decision-making effort, I asked how a group that could be so disparate could make any decisions. In this entry we will look at how decisions typically are made in groups.
Remember: from an earlier post I am talking about true group decisions, not situations in which a senior person makes the decisions and the group simply rubber-stamps them. This can be done overtly or more subtly by appearing to discuss the issue but taking cues from the senior person present. Nor will I address times when you, as an individual, are making decisions or solving problems for yourself.
First, an issue or problem is identified and needs to be dealt with. Second, a group is put together to determine what needs to be done to deal with it. Third, the group quickly and efficiently makes a decision, or develops a solution to the problem. Fourth, the decision is acted upon or the solution is implemented and everyone is happy.
Yes, I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek here. We all wish that scenario were being played out as a result of every meeting or problem-solving session. But, as we know, reality is a bit different.
When a group gets together for the purpose above, the first thing they have to do is agree on the issue. While we may think the issue or problem should be obvious, I have seen times when there was substantial disagreement as to how important it is, whether the right issue has been identified, and even whether or not there is an issue at all.
Assuming the group has agreed upon the issue, they then set about the process of deciding how to deal with it. There are a number of ways this can be, and has been, done. Let’s look at a few.
1.They decide they need more information; one of the following happens:
a. A subset of the group is asked to research it and bring the results back to the next meeting.
b. They determine who in the group knows the most about the issue or at least the background and ask their advice.
c. If no one in the group actually is considered knowledgeable about the background of the issue, they may first determine who within (or sometimes outside) the organization has that knowledge and seek them out for their advice.
In some cases, the decision, once information is available, becomes fairly easy to make but in other cases, in my experience most, the decision-making process is more complicated. Then they move on to one, or a combination, of the following:
2. After some discussion, a proposal is made, the group decides it is reasonable and accepts it; then they get on with their other duties.
3. After a number of meetings and discussions, the group determines they have enough information, ideas, and proposals and chooses one as the decision.
4. After some discussion, they decide to go through the process of brainstorming and come up with a list of ideas. They then go over the list to pare it down to a few for further consideration, discussion, and debate, after which one is chosen.
5. After some discussion, there are two or more ideas that have strong proponents as the decision the group should reach. They engage in the process of compromise to reach a final position that may be a combination of those ideas.
Each of these approaches can lead to a decision by the group but each has drawbacks.
In number 1 above, there are several alternative courses listed, each of which can actually get in the way of efficiently reaching the goal of making an effective decision. The group needs to be somewhat disciplined about how it approaches these if it wants to be successful.
In 1a, the risk is that they can get caught up in the research and have a problem determining they have enough information to make the decision. This can be a great way to avoid actually making a decision, especially if it could be controversial. Sometimes, we call this the paralysis of analysis.
1b: The risk here is that, on that basis, they simply accept what that person proposes without really examining it. This is not functionally different from the case I said we would not consider: one person makes the decision and the group rubber-stamps it.
1c: This is not much different from 1b. It will take longer, though, and has the same risk.
In number 2, i.e., the group simply accepts a reasonable proposal, there is a considerable risk that there are other, potentially “better,” or at least as effective, proposals that could and should be considered. The group needs to be willing to invest the time and effort to examine them.
Number 3 is something I have seen on occasion. After much discussion and debate, sometimes acrimonious, the group becomes weary of the process and just wants to get it done so that they can move on. Often, the decision that is finally agreed by the group is the one that the strongest, or loudest, or most persistent, member has championed.
The approaches described in numbers 1, 2, and 3 are examples of the processes of groups who are not used to making decisions, but the next two are actually more commonly promoted by people who have experience or training in group decision-making and problem-solving,
Number 4, brainstorming, is, of course, a very common approach which was made popular a number of years (decades, actually) ago, and still is used in many instances. The group sets aside a time when they will throw out ideas, recording each one on a flip chart or on a computer connected to a projector, but ideally avoiding making any judgements on the merits of the ideas at that point. The goal is to get a lot of alternatives on paper (figuratively so in the case of a projected computer document) so that they can, when the group decides there are enough ideas, begin to evaluate each one. Here is where the fun starts.
What do you think happens when your pet idea, one that you think is great, is subjected to criticism by others in the group? Are you happy? Or are you a bit miffed? Unless someone points out, accurately and truthfully (and preferably civilly!), an obviously fatal flaw in your idea, you are not likely to be happy. You may even feel you have been personally attacked, especially depending on how the criticism is expressed. We all think we have good ideas and, often, we are correct. Sometimes, we are not. But it can be an unpleasant experience to see those ideas and proposals shot down.
Unfortunately, the temptation is to seek flaws in other people’s ideas, especially those who have been critical of ours. This, in turn, can lead to conflict, contention and rancor, making a decision that much harder to reach. Have any of you seen shouting matches in meetings when two strong personalities a pushing their own ideas? My bet is yes. It does not, however, require shouting to have conflict. Strong disagreements can appear especially when two people not only have strong personalities but also do not like each other, something not at all uncommon in the business setting.
You might think this happens when we are dealing with very big issues and decisions about major projects but that is not the case. The smaller and less critical an issue is the more difficult it often becomes to agree to a decision and the more likely we are to see conflict and contention among members of the group.
This phenomenon is known, in a somewhat mocking vein, as the Law of Triviality and has been explained in the context of a committee formed to develop a design for a nuclear power plant site. The plant itself, complex, expensive, and a multi-year project, was handled fairly efficiently since most of the decisions were highly technical and required a lot of expertise to understand, as well as understanding how to navigate a thicket of governmental regulations. Where the group bogged down was on the design and color of the staff bicycle shed. They argued and fought for weeks over this seemingly trivial aspect of the project. Everyone had a strong opinion on what it should look like and each was very insistent on being heard. This is why the Law of Triviality is also called the Bike-shed Effect.
No matter which of the above approaches is used, in most cases there are several possible decision choices, each with strong merits, its own strong proponents, and perhaps serious problems. The group is not charged with coming up with several decision choices that are taken to their senior managers, however. The bosses want one recommended decision, otherwise why did they have the group formed in the first place?
A means of coming up with one choice is needed. That means, most often, is compromise, or number 5 above. Compromise turns out to be one of my favorite topics. We will address compromise next week.