We will begin our discussions of group decision-making by looking at various characteristics of groups that affect the decision-making process. This will include their compositions, purposes, interpersonal relationships, personalities, and other factors that affect their capacities for making decisions. These are all a part of what is called “group dynamics,” the way groups actually function.
Any group of people responsible for any task will be composed of different personalities and styles of working. This applies to any decision-making or problem-solving group as well. Success requires the group to work together despite the differences. This can be a challenge. But, like any challenge, it can be overcome, worked with, and even used advantageously. That is, assuming the group has the will to do so.
In the last blog post I said that compromise was one of my favorite subjects. Here we will begin to explore the advantages and disadvantages of compromise. There are actually many of both but, as you will see, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Last week, we looked at the first definition of compromise. I will reproduce the full list here for reference:
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language defines compromise in this way:
Let’s continue.
The last post ended with the question, “So, why do people use compromise?” Let’s explore that one.
Compromise is, to me, one of those things that has been around for so long that it seems normal. Does it work? That depends on what you mean by “work.” Can it be used to make decisions, come to agreement, and solve problems? Yes. But making the decision or coming to the agreement is just the beginning. What happens next is critical for determining whether the process of compromise “worked.”
There are many factors that can affect the process and effectiveness of compromise as well as what happens later. “Later?” you say. Yes, after that often convoluted effort the decisions resulting from compromise then have to be implemented and worked with, and this is another source of problems with compromise. I will get back to the topic of what happens next in a bit.
This week I want to start to address an important issue: ego.
Ego is an important part of personality; it defines us to ourselves as who we are. It is very intimately internal to each of us. Ego, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad but how we express our ego to those around us will influence how they see us. It will also influence how they relate to and work with us.
Last week I started on the subject of ego and talked about the positive value of ego and how that could contribute positively to a group decision-making or problem-solving effort. This week I will turn to the Dark Side of ego (with apologies to George Lucas).
In this post, we will begin to address the third Guideline of Solution-Building, one based on the principle of courtesy:
This should be a no-brainer, right? Unfortunately, that is often not the way people act with and towards each other.
Let’s now move back to our discussion of the Solution-Building Guidelines and look at number 4, which is based on the basic concept of commitment as well as courtesy: