Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Group decision-making (also known as collaborative decision-making) is a situation faced when individuals collectively make a
choice from the alternatives before them. The decision is then no longer attributable to any single individual who is a member of the
group. This is because all the individuals andsocial group processes such as social influence contribute to the outcome. The decisions
made by groups are often different from those made by individuals. Group polarization is one clear example: groups tend to make
[1]
decisions that are more extreme than those of its individual members, in the direction of the individual inclinations.
There is much debate as to whether this difference results in decisions that are better or worse. According to the idea of synergy,
decisions made collectively tend to be more effective than decisions made by a single individual. However, there are also examples
where the decisions made by a group are flawed, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the incident on which the groupthink model of
group decision-making is based.[2]
Factors that impact other social group behaviours also affect group decisions. For example, groups high in cohesion, in combination
with other antecedent conditions (e.g. ideological homogeneity and insulation from dissenting opinions) have been noted to have a
negative effect on group decision-making and hence on group effectiveness.[2] Moreover, when individuals make decisions as part of
a group, there is a tendency to exhibit a bias towards discussing shared information (i.e. shared information bias), as opposed to
unshared information.
Contents
In psychology
Formal systems
Decision-making in social settings
Decision support systems
Group discussion pitfalls
Cognitive limitations and subsequent error
See also
References
In psychology
The social identity approach suggests a more general approach to group decision-making than the popular groupthink model, which
is a narrow look at situations where group and other decision-making is flawed. Social identity analysis suggests that the changes
which occur during collective decision-making is part of rational psychological processes which build on the essence of the group in
ways that are psychologically efficient, grounded in the social reality experienced by members of the group and have the potential to
have a positive impact on society.[3]
Formal systems
Consensus decision-making
Tries to avoid "winners" and "losers". Consensus requires that a majority approve a given
course of action, but that the minority agree to go along with the course of action. In other
words, if the minority opposes the course of action, consensus requires that the course of
action be modified to remove objectionable features.
Voting-based methods
Range voting lets each member score one or more of the available options. The option with
the highest average is chosen. This method has experimentally been shown to produce the
lowest Bayesian regret among common voting methods, even when voters are strategic.
Majority requires support from more than 50% of the members of the group. Thus, the bar
for action is lower than with unanimity and a group of "losers" is implicit to this rule.
Plurality, where the largest block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a majority.
Delphi method
This method is a structured communication technique for groups, originally developed for
collaborative forecasting but also used for policy-making.
Dotmocracy
A method that relies on the use of forms called "dotmocracy sheets" to allow large groups to
brainstorm collectively and recognize agreement on an unlimited number of ideas they have
authored.
In addition to the different processes involved in making decisions, group decision support systems (GDSSs) may have different
decision rules. A decision rule is the GDSS protocol a group uses to choose among
scenario planning alternatives.
Gathering
Involves all participants acknowledging each other's needs and opinions and tends towards
a problem solving approach in which as many needs and opinions as possible can be
satisfied. It allows for multiple outcomes and does not require agreement from some for
others to act.
Sub-committee
Involves assigning responsibility for evaluation of a decision to a sub-set of a larger group,
which then comes back to the larger group with recommendations for action. Using a sub-
committee is more common in larger governance groups, such as a legislature. Sometimes
a sub-committee includes those individuals most affected by a decision, although at other
times it is useful for the larger group to have a sub-committee that involves more neutral
participants.
Participatory
Each participant has a say that is directly proportional to the degree that particular decision
would affect the individual. Those not affected by a decision would have no say and those
exclusively affected by a decision would have full say. Likewise, those most affected would
have the most say while those least affected would have the least say.
Plurality and dictatorship are less desirable as decision rules because they do not require the involvement of the broader group to
determine a choice. Thus, they do not engender commitment to the course of action chosen. An absence of commitment from
individuals in the group can be problematic during the implementation phase of a decision.
There are no perfect decision-making rules. Depending on how the rules are implemented in practice and the situation, all of these
can lead to situations where either no decision is made, or to situations where decisions made are inconsistent with one another over
time.
Delegation
An individual, subgroup or external party makes the decision on behalf of the group. For
instance, in an "authority scheme", the leader makes the decision or, in an oligarchy, a
coalition of leading figures makes the decision.
Averaging
Each group member makes their own private and independent decision and all are later
"averaged" to produce a decision.
Plurality
Group members vote on their preferences, either privately or publicly. These votes are then
used to select a decision, either by simple majority, supermajority or other more or less
complicated voting system.
Unanimity
A consensus scheme whereby the group discusses the issue until it reaches a unanimous
agreement. This decision rule is what dictates the decision-making for most juries.
Random
The group leaves the choice to chance. For example, picking a number between 1 and 10 or
flipping a coin.[4]
There are strengths and weaknesses to each of these social decision schemes. Delegation saves time and is a good method for less
important decisions, but ignored members might react negatively. Averaging responses will cancel out extreme opinions, but the final
decision might disappoint many members. Plurality is the most consistent scheme when superior decisions are being made, and it
involves the least amount of effort.[4] Voting, however, may lead to members feeling alienated when they lose a close vote, or to
internal politics, or to conformity to other opinions.[5] Consensus schemes involve members more deeply, and tend to lead to high
levels of commitment. But, it might be difficult for the group to reach such decisions.[6]
Decide
The leader of the group uses other group members as sources of information, but makes the
final decision independently and does not explain to group members why s/he required that
information.
Consult (individual)
The leader talks to each group member alone and never consults a group meeting. S/he
then makes the final decision in light of the information obtained in this manner.
Consult (group)
The group and the leader meet and s/he consults the entire group at once, asking for
opinions and information, then comes to a decision.
Facilitate
The leader takes on a cooperative holistic approach, collaborating with the group as a whole
as they work toward a unified and consensual decision. The leader is non-directive and
never imposes a particular solution on the group. In this case, the final decision is one made
by the group, not by the leader.
Delegate
The leader takes a backseat approach, passing the problem over to the group. The leader is
supportive, but allows the group to come to a decision without their direct collaboration.
Decision-making software is essential for autonomous robots and for different forms of active decision support for industrial
operators, designers and managers.
Due to the large number of considerations involved in many decisions, computer-based decision support systems (DSS) have been
developed to assist decision-makers in considering the implications of various courses of thinking. They can help reduce the risk of
human errors. DSSs which try to realize some human-cognitive decision-making functions are called Intelligent Decision Support
Systems (IDSS).[10] On the other hand, an active and intelligent DSS is an important tool for the design of complex engineering
systems and the management of large technological and business projects.[11]
It is also the case that groups sometimes use discussion to avoid rather than make a decision. Avoidance tactics include the
following:[7]
Procrastination
Replacing high-priority tasks with tasks of lower priority. The group postpones the decision
rather than studying the alternatives and discussing their relative merits.
Bolstering
The group may quickly or arbitrarily formulate a decision without thinking things through to
completion. They then bolster their decision by exaggerating the favorable consequences of
the decision and minimizing the importance of unfavorable consequences.
Denying responsibility
The group delegates the decision to a subcommittee or diffuses accountability throughout
the entire group, thereby avoiding responsibility.
Muddling through
The group muddles through the issue by considering only a very narrow range of
alternatives that differ to only a small degree from the existing choice.
"Satisficing"
A combination of the words "satisfy" and "suffice". Members accept a low-risk, easy solution
instead of searching for the best solution.
Trivialization
The group will avoid dealing with larger issues by focusing on minor issues.
Parkinson's Law
"A task will expand to fill the time available for its completion."
Law of triviality
"The amount of time a group spends discussing an issue will be in inverse proportion to the
consequentiality of the issue."
(For example, a committee discusses an expenditure of $20 million for 3 minutes and one for
$500 for 15 minutes.)
"Sins of commission"
The misuse, abuse and/or inappropriate use of information, including:
Belief perseverance
A group utilises information in their decision-making that has already been deemed
inaccurate.
Sunk cost bias
A group remains committed to a given plan primarily due to the investment already made in
that plan, regardless of how inefficient and/or ineffective it may have become.
Extra-evidentiary bias
A group choosing to use some information despite having been told it should be ignored.
Hindsight bias
Group members falsely over-estimate the accuracy of and/or the relevance of their past
knowledge of a given outcome.
"Sins of omission"
Overlooking useful information. This can include:
"Sins of imprecision"