Techniques in Group Decision Making

Prepared by: Leoniv A CrisostomoSubject: PA 205-Managerial Decision MakingProfessor: Dr. Elenita L. Tan

Topic:

Group decision making (also known as collaborative decision-making) can be defined as a type of participatory process in which multiple individuals acting collectively, analyze problems or situations, consider and evaluate alternative courses of action, and select from among the alternatives a solution or solutions.

GROUP DECISION MAKING

Assembling employees into decision-making groups is one method of tackling an issue or problem in the workplace. The more minds working on a single problem the more potential solutions are created. However, making a final decision in a group may be difficult in certain circumstances. Group decision-making techniques help businesses turn ideas into action plans.

Brainstorming Nominal Group Technique Delphi Technique Stepladder Technique Devil’s Advocacy Fishbowling Didactic Interaction

The Techniques in Group Decision Making are:

Brainstorming is a popular group decision-making technique that is used for generating ideas.

In brainstorming, the leader of the session presents a problem or question, clarifies the rules of the session and then the group offers ideas in a round-robin format. Ideas are written down so that every member can see them.

Madison Avenue advertising executive Alex Osborn developed the original approach to brainstorming and published it in his 1953 book, "Applied Imagination.”

Osborn described brainstorming as "a conference technique by which a group attempts to find a solution for a specific problem by amassing all the ideas spontaneously by its members".

During brainstorming, group members are encouraged to state their ideas, no matter how wild they may seem, while an appointed group member records all ideas for discussion.

Osborn claimed that brainstorming was more effective than individuals working alone in generating ideas, although more recent research has questioned this conclusion. 

Two Principles that contribute to “Ideative Efficacy”

1. Defer judgment2. Reach for quantity

The four general rules of brainstorming

established with intention to:• Reduce social inhibitions among group members,• Stimulate idea generation• Increase overall creativity of the group.

1. Focus on quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.

2. Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.

3. Welcome unusual ideas: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking may provide better solutions.

4. Combine and improve ideas: Good ideas may be combined to form a single better good idea, as suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.

Brainstorming is a popular method of group interaction in both educational and business settings. Although it does not provide a measurable advantage in creative output, conventional brainstorming is an enjoyable

exercise that is typically well received by participants. 

When managed well, brainstorming can help you generate radical solutions to problems. Brainstorming can also encourage people to commit to solutions, because they have provided input and played a role in developing them. To be successful, the leader of a brainstorming session must understand the problem and be able to create a relaxed and creative air.

NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE (NGT)

This group decision-making technique is used to identify problems or to evaluate alternatives.

This process is designed to ensure that each group member has equal participation in making the group decisions.

This technique was originally developed by Andre Delbecq and Andrew Van de Ven at the University of Wisconsin and has been applied to adult education program planning by K. R. Vedros.

STEP 1: Each group member writes down individual ideas on the decision or problem being discussed.

It involves the following steps:

STEP 3: After all members present their ideas, the entire group discussed these ideas simultaneously. Discussion tends to be unstructured and spontaneous.

STEP 4: When discussion is completed, a secret ballot is taken to allow members to support their favourite ideas without fear. The idea receiving the most votes is adopted and implemented.

STEP 2: Each member presents individual ideas orally. The ideas are usually written on a board for all other members to see and refer to.

Voting is anonymous There are opportunities for equal participation

of group members

Distractions (communication "noise") inherent in other group methods are minimized

Results in a set of prioritized solutions or recommendations

Prevents the domination of discussion by a single person, encourages the more passive group members to participate

Advantages

Opinions may not converge in the voting process

Cross-fertilization of ideas may be constrained

The process may appear to be too mechanical

Disadvantages

When some group members are much more vocal than others.

When some group members think better in silence.

When there is concern about some members not participating.

When the group does not easily generate quantities of ideas.

When all or some group members are new to the team.

When the issue is controversial or there is heated conflict.

When to Use Nominal Group Technique

Discussion should be equally balanced among all ideas. The facilitator should not allow discussion to turn into argument. The primary purpose of the discussion is clarification. It is not to resolve differences of opinion.

Keep all ideas visible. When ideas overflow to additional flipchart pages, post previous pages around the room so all ideas are still visible to everyone.

Nominal Group Technique Considerations

DELPHI TECHNIQUE

The Delphi method was originally developed in the early 1950s at the RAND Corporation by Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey to systematically solicit the view of experts related to national defense and later in controversial sociopolitical areas of discourse

It is a structured variant of the traditional expert polls and is usually used in forecasting.

The Delphi technique involves circulating questionnaires on a specific problem among group members, sharing the questionnaire results with them, and then continuing to recirculate and refine individual responses until a consensus regarding  the problem is reached.

In contrast to the nominal group technique or brainstorming, the Delphi technique does not have group members meet face to face.

The administrators of the Delphi method make a decision based on the results of the rounds.

The Delphi method helps the group reach consensus without the influence of strong members of the group and the tendency to rush for a decision at the end of a meeting.

The success of this process depends upon the member's expertise and communication skill.

Each response requires adequate time for reflection and analysis.

The formal steps followed in the Delphi Technique are:

STEP 5: Step 3 and 4 are repeated until a consensus problem solutions is reached.

STEP 1: A problem is identified.

STEP 2: Group members are asked to offer solutions to the problem by  providing anonymous responses to a carefully designed questionnaires.

STEP 3: Responses of all group members are compiled and sent out to all group members.

STEP 4: Individual group members are asked to generate a new individual solution to the problem after they have studied the individual responses of all other group members.

The major merits of the Delphi process are:

Elimination of interpersonal problems.

Efficient use of expert's time.

Diversity of ideals.

Accuracy of solutions and predictions.

The key characteristics of the Delphi method:

Anonymity of the participants. Usually all participants remain anonymous. Their identity is not revealed, even after the completion of the final report. This prevents the authority, personality, or reputation of some participants from dominating others in the process. Arguably, it also frees participants (to some extent) from their personal biases, minimizes the "bandwagon effect" or "halo effect", allows free expression of opinions, encourages open critique, and facilitates admission of errors when revising earlier judgments.

Structuring of information flow. The initial contributions from the experts are collected in the form of answers to questionnaires and their comments to these answers. The panel director controls the interactions among the participants by processing the information and filtering out irrelevant content. This avoids the negative effects of face-to-face panel discussions and solves the usual problems of group dynamics.

Regular feedback Participants comment on their own forecasts, the responses of others and on the progress of the panel as a whole. At any moment they can revise their earlier statements. While in regular group meetings participants tend to stick to previously stated opinions and often conform too much to the group leader; the Delphi method prevents it.

Role of the facilitator. The person coordinating the Delphi method is usually known as a facilitator or Leader, and facilitates the responses of their panel of experts, who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The facilitator sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses are collected and analyzed, then common and conflicting viewpoints are identified. If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus.

The Stepladder Technique is a simple tool that manages how members enter the decision-making group.

Developed by Steven Rogelberg, Janet Barnes-Farrell and Charles Lowe in 1992, it encourages all members to contribute on an individual level BEFORE being influenced by anyone else. This results in a wider variety of ideas, it prevents people from "hiding" within the group, and it helps people avoid being "stepped on" or overpowered by stronger, louder group members.

The Stepladder Technique is similar to the Delphi Method, another tool that's often used in groups to prevent Groupthink and to encourage participation.

Stepladder Technique

In the Delphi Method, an objective facilitator or leader manages the group. In the Stepladder Technique, all members are equal.

The Delphi Method keeps members anonymous. The facilitator manages the flow of information, and members may have no idea who else is in the group. The Stepladder Technique involves face-to-face meetings, so everyone knows who the other members are.

The Delphi Method is a lengthy process, while the Stepladder Technique is much quicker.

The Delphi Method is often used for major decisions that need input from a large number of people. The Stepladder Technique works best with smaller groups that make a wide range of decisions.

While both tools have the same objective, they differ in a few key ways:

DEVIL’S ADVOCACYThe devil's advocacy is a decision-making

technique where the group is allowed to become the critic in the proposed decision. This technique helps prevent groupthink and increases the chance of a high-quality decision.

Three Types of Devil's AdvocacyThree types of devil's advocacy have been discussed in the business and 

public administration literatures. 

1.The first is the basic devil's advocate approach in which a person within a decision-making group  is appointed to critique a preferred plan or option. This person attempts to point out weaknesses in the assumptions underlying the plan, its internal inconsistencies, and problems which may lead to failure in implementation.

2. A variant of this basic devil's advocate approach is called multiple advocacy. This technique involves the use of several devil's advocates drawn from the organization's internal or external critics. Each group critical of a preferred option or plan can be represented by their own devil's advocate.

Alexander George, in his book Presidential Decision-Making, claims that multiple advocacy should be superior to the use of devil‘s advocates because it includes more advocates and more options.

In the multiple advocacy system, representatives of minority opinions and unpopular views present these to decision-makers in order to encourage them to question the assumptionsunderlying the prevailing or favored policy.

Dialectical inquiry is a group decision-making technique that focuses on ensuring full consideration of alternatives.

Essentially, it involves dividing the group into opposing sides, which debate the advantages and disadvantages of proposed solutions or decisions.

The approach can be traced back to the dialectic school of philosophy in ancient Greece. Plato and his followers attempted to synthesize truths by exploring opposite positions, called thesis and antithesis.

3. Mason and Mitroff (1981) have summarized research on another variant of devil's advocacy. They call this technique dialectical inquiry and in its elaborated form, Strategic Assumptions Analysis.

Although it stimulates programmed conflict, it is a constructive approach, because it elicits the benefits and limitations of opposing sets of ideas.

Organizations that use dialectical inquiry create teams of decision makers. Each team is instructed to generate and evaluate alternative courses of action and then recommend the best one. Then after hearing each team’s alternative courses of action, the team’s and the organization’s top managers meet together and select the best parts of each plan and synthesize a final plan that provides the best opportunity for success.

Fish-bowling  is  a  variation  of  the  brainstorming  but  is  more structured and is to the point. 

The decision making group of experts  is  seated around  in a circle with a single chair in the centre of the circle. One member of the group is invited to sit in the centre chair and gives his views about the problem and his proposition of solution in discussion The other group members can ask him questions but no cross talk is allowed. Once the member finishes and his viewpoint is fully understood, he leaves the center and joins the group in the circle. 

Exchange  between  the  center  chair  and  the  group  members continues until  the  chair  is  vacated. All  exchanges must be between  the center  and  the  group  and  no  two  group  members  are  allowed  to  talk directly 

FISH BOWLING

This  technique  results  in  each member  favoring  a  particular  course of action,  since  all members  are  acting upon  the  same database  and  also  since each  idea  offered  by  the  central  members  is  thoroughly  questioned  and examined.

After  all  the  experts  have  expressed  their  views,  the  entire  group discusses the various alternatives suggested and pick the one with consensus

This  technique  is  based  on  the  premise  that  you  can  identify  two or more groups of people who hold distinctly different views on an issue that is important to your company.

WHEN TO USE THE FISHBOWL TECHNIQUE

This technique is applicable only in certain situations, but is an  excellent  method  when  such  a  situation  exists.  The  type  of problem should result into a yes-no solution.

There are two groups, one favoring ‘yes’ and other favoring ‘no’. The first group will  list all  the  ‘pros’ of  the problem solution and the second group will list all the ‘cons’.

 These two groups meet and discuss their findings and their 

reasons.  After  an  exhaustive discussions,  the  groups  switch  sides and try to find weaknesses in their own original viewpoints. 

This interchange of ideas and tolerance and understanding of  opposing  viewpoints  results  in  mutual  acceptance  of  facts  as they  exist  so  that  a  solution  can be  built  around  these  facts  and opinions relating to these facts and thus a final decision is reached

DIDACTIC INTERACTION

In  business,  decisions  are  an  everyday  occurrence.  The  challenge we  all  face  is  when  to  make  decisions  based  on  a  group  input  as opposed to making a decision on individual input. There are advantages and disadvantages to both concepts, and truth be told, neither is really right or wrong.

You  see,  if  we  make  a  decision  as  a  group,  we  are  getting a consensus, which is a cohesive, agreeable decision made by more than one person. This consensus takes into account the different viewpoints, backgrounds and perspectives of the individuals that made the decision. Truly,  it  is  a  team  decision  and  one  that  can  bring  individuals  in  an organization together to fix a common problem. 

CONCLUSION