Group Decision Making In Organizational Behavior

Group Decision Making In OB


Groups Decision Making


Groups decision making benefits are to find decisions from the experienced and perspective large number of individuals. Therefore, a group may have the ability to be more creative and make more effective decisions. In fact, groups can sometimes achieve results beyond what they could have done as individuals. Can make work more enjoyable for group members. Finally, when a decision is made by a group rather than a single one, the implementation of the decision will become easier, as the group members will be more invested in the decision. If the group is diverse, better decisions can be made, as different members of the group may have different views based on their backgrounds and experiences. Research shows that for top management teams, the various groups that debate make decisions that are more comprehensive and preferable to the bottom line. group decision suffers from many disadvantages. While groups have the ability to make an effective decision, groups may suffer from coordination problems. Anyone who has worked with a team of individuals on a project may have difficulty in coordinating the work of members or coordinating the attendance of everyone in a team meeting. group decision making takes longer than individual decision making, as all members need to discuss their ideas about different options. Decision making by groups may be more effective.

Groups Thinking


Group thinking is a tendency to avoid critical evaluation of the group's favoring views. Ewing Janis, author of the book Victims of Groupthink, states that groupthink is characterized by following traits. illusion of disqualification is shared by most group members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages them to take extreme risks. There are collective rationalizations, in which members reduce negative information or warnings. Due to which they may have to reconsider their beliefs. Confidence occurs, which may lead members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions. When groups' rivals discount the ability to make effective responses, stable views of outflows are seen. Direct pressure is put on the member who expresses strong arguments against any stereotypes, confusion or commitments of the group Occurs when group members have the illusion of being unanimous on the basis of direct pressure on their. Lack of dissatisfaction is seen as unanimous. Self-appointed more members protect the group from information that runs counter to the group's beliefs and course of action.

Techniques for Making Better Decisions


There are following Tools and Techniques for Making Better Decisions.
Nominal Group Technique (NGT).
Delphi Technique .
Majority rule.
Consensus.
Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS).
knowledge management systems.
Decision trees.

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)


In The nominal grouping technique (NGT), group decision making to ensure that all members participate fully. NGT is not a regularly used technique in all meetings. Rather, it is used to structure group meetings when members are struggling with problem resolution or idea generation. It follows four steps. First, each member of the group begins writing ideas independently and quietly. Second, the group goes around the room in order to gather all the ideas that were generated. This process continues until all ideas are shared. Third, there is a discussion around each idea, and members ask for clarification and evaluate. Finally, group members vote for their favorite ideas using ranking or rating techniques. Adhering to the four-step NGT helps ensure that all members participate fully, and that avoided group decision-making problems such as groupthinking.

Delphi Technique


The Delphi technique is unique because it is a group process, that uses the written responses of a series of questionnaires rather than physically bringing individuals together to make decisions. outlining objectives, or proposing a solution. Each subsequent questionnaire is constructed from the information gathered in the previous one. This process ceases when the group reaches a consensus. Facilitators can decide whether to keep responses anonymous. This process is often used to generate best practice from experts. For example, Professor Michael Campion of Purdue University used this process when he was the editor of the research journal Personnel Psychology and wanted to determine the qualities that distinguished a good research article. Using the Delphi technique, he was able to gather responses from hundreds of top researchers around the world and distribute them to a list of criteria he could use to evaluate articles submitted to his journal, all Without leaving his office.

Majority Rule


Majority rules refer to a decision-making rule in which each member of the group is given one vote and the option that receives the largest number of votes is selected. This technique remains popular, perhaps due to its simplicity, speed, ease of use, and representational objectivity. Research also supports majority governance as an effective decision-making technique. However, those who do not vote in favor of the decision will be less likely to support it.

Consensus


Consensus is another decision-making rule that groups can use, when the goal is to gain support for an idea or action plan. Although consensus requires more time, it makes sense when support is needed to implement the plan. The process works from discussing the issues at hand, preparing a proposal, calling for consensus, and discussing any concerns. If concerns still exist, the proposal has been revised to accommodate them. These steps are repeated until consensus is reached. Consensus decision-making technique is inclusive, participatory, cooperative, and democratic. consensus has better accuracy, and it helps members feel more satisfied with the decision. However, groups take longer time with this approach, if consensus is not reached, members become frustrated.

Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) 


Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) are interactive computer-based systems capable of combining communication and decision technologies to help groups make better decisions. Research suggests that Group Decision Support Systems can actually improve the production of collaborative actions of groups through higher information sharing. Improving group decisions by improved pooling information.

knowledge Management Systems


Knowledge management systems are important for information sharing, and their expense reflects this reality. Businesses invested $ 2.7 billion in new systems in 2002 and estimated the number to double every 5 years. As the popularity of these systems increases, they risk being reversed. Man can only process so many thoughts and information at one time. the system is probably becoming too complex. If the system develops to a point of uneasy complexity, it has re-created the problem. Those who understand the interface will control the plot of the discussion, while those who are less discerning will only be along for the ride.

Decision Tree


Decision trees are diagrams with yes or no questions to answer that helps decision makers to reach the end of the tree. Decision-making trees are helpful in guiding the decision-maker to a predefined choice and ensuring continuity of decision-making following a course of action unlike the others, Using a decision tree.

Ethics and Decision Making 


Many decisions involve an ethical component, to assess the morality of a decision, Is this decision fair? Will I feel better or worse about myself after making this decision? Does this decision break any organizational rules? Does this decision break any laws? How would I have felt if the decision had been aired on the news.

Decision Making Around The Globe


Decision-making styles and approaches around the globe vary depending on the context, and an important contextual factor to keep in mind is the culture in which decisions are being made. Research from Japanese and Dutch decision makers suggests that both cultures are unanimous-oriented, with Japanese managers seeking a much greater consensus than Dutch managers. American managers value quick decision making, while Chinese managers tend to be more reflective and take their time to make important decision, especially when they involve some type of potential conflict.