Group Decision Making

• Up to 40% of a manager’s time is spent in meetings– All meetings involve decision making

What Experienced “Problem Solvers” say ...

• First four steps– Collect and analyze information and data– Talk with people familiar with the problem– If at all possible, view the problem firsthand– Confirm all findings

• The next four steps– Determine if the problem should be solved– Continue to gather information, search literature– Form simple hypotheses and quickly test them– Brainstorm potential causes and solution

alternatives

Problem

Achieve Make it OK

NOT to

What What

to do to do

How to do it How to do it

Duncker Diagram Worksheet

Group Decision Making• Advantages

– More complete information (diversity of experience, perspectives)

– Identify / generate more alternatives– Increases acceptance of solutions– Increases legitimacy (democratic ideals,

regardless of legitimate power)– Tend to be more accurate / better– More effective

Group Decision Making• Disadvantages

– Time consuming– Potential for imbalanced influence /

contribution– “Group-think” (pressure to conform)

• Undermines individual’s critical thought– Ambiguous responsibility– “Size” sensitive (5 - 7 is ideal)– Tend to be slower than individual

decision making– Less efficient

Management Science model

• Analogous to Rational Model• Clarity of problem

– Problems are analyzable– Problems are well structured

• Clarity of decision criteria• Identify relevant variables

– Suited to large number of variables– Issues of complexity

Management Science model

• Advantages / Disadvantages– Difficulties in incorporating appropriate

criteria– The nature of the data used to arrive at a

decision• High in “Quantity”• Low in “Richness”

Carnegie Model

• Analogous to a “Behavioral Model” (applying bounded rationality)– Based upon uncertainty / ambiguity

• Goals & Objectives– Frequently ambiguous or inconsistent– Creates disagreements about priorities

• Managers intend to be rational– Constrained by cognitive capabilities– Seek to gather information - reduce

ambiguity

Carnegie Model

• Coalition formation– Facilitates prioritization– “satisficing” rather than optimization– Managers more concerned with short-run

• Problemistic search– Immediate environment for solution that will quickly solve problem

– Don’t expect “perfect solution– First satisfactory solution presented

Uncertainty Coalition Formation SearchInformation limitations Joint discussions Simple, local searchMany constraints Interpret goals Established proceduresDifferent constraints Interpret problems (if appropriate)

Create solution (if needed)Share opinions

Conflict Satisficing behaviorDifferent goals Establish problem priorities First acceptable alternative

Different opinionsDifferent values Obtain support for problemDifferent experiences Obtain support for solution

Carnegie “process”

Incremental Process Model

• Another “behavioral model”– Less emphasis on social factors– More emphasis on structured sequence of

activities– Most decisions = nonprogrammed

• Require “custom” solutions

Incremental Process Model• Major organizational choices

– Series of small choices– Combining to produce major decision– “Nibbles” vs. “Bites”

• Decision “Interrupts”– Barriers– Requires cycling back through previous

decision• Trying something “new”

Incremental Process Model

• Identification– Recognition– Diagnosis

• Development– Search / Screen alternative solutions– Design custom solutions

• Selection– Judgement / evaluation - choice– Analysis / evaluation– Bargaining / evaluation - choice– Authorization

Organization decision process / uncertainty

When uncertain: When uncertainCarnegie Model Incremental process model

Political and Social processes Incremental, trial & errorBuild coalition Big problems / little stepsAgreement to resolve conflicts

Resolve conflics about goals & Recycle & try again when blockedproblem priorities

Problem Identification Problem Solution

Contingency framework

• Goal ConsensusGoal Consensus– Agreement about goals and outcomes– Agreement

Disagreement• If agree

– Goals are clear– Standards of performance are clear

• Tends to be related to diversity of business

Contingency framework

• Technical knowledgeTechnical knowledge– Understanding / agreement about “how”

to reach organization’s goals– Ability to achieve acceptable solution

• Goals = EffectivenessGoals = Effectiveness• Technical knowledge = EfficiencyTechnical knowledge = Efficiency

Low

High

High 1 2Problem Ident. Problem Ident.Low Uncertainty High Uncertainty

Problem Solution Problem SolutionLow Uncertainty Low Uncertainty

3 4Problem Ident. Problem Ident.Low Uncertainty High Uncertainty

Problem Solution Problem SolutionHigh Uncertainty High Uncertainty

Low

Contingency Decision Situations

GoalConsensus

TechnicalKnowledge

Low

High

High 1 2Individual IndividualRational approach BargainingComputational Coalition formation

Organization OrganizationManagement Science Model Carnegie Model

3 4Individual IndividualJudgement Bargaining & JudgementTrial & Error Inspiration & Imitation

Organization OrganizationIncremental Process Carnegie & Incremental

Evolving to Garbage Can

Low

Contingency Decision Models

GoalConsensus

TechnicalKnowledge

Low

High

High 1 2Individual IndividualRational approach BargainingComputational Coalition formation

Organization OrganizationManagement Science Model Carnegie Model

3 4Individual IndividualJudgement Bargaining & JudgementTrial & Error Inspiration & Imitation

Organization OrganizationIncremental Process Carnegie & Incremental

Evolving to Garbage Can

Low

Contingency Decision Models

GoalConsensus

TechnicalKnowledge

Intuition

Compromise

Conceptions of order

• Reality– Capability of objective assessment– “Real” truth

• Causality– Reality is a chain of causes and effects– Choices influence results

• Intentionality– The results were intended– Decisions are instruments of purpose & Self

Models of intentional decision

• Rational choice– Evaluating anticipated consequences– Used in non-programmed decisions

• Learning– Evaluating past experiences– Used in both programmed & nonprogrammed

• Matching identity to rule/proc./policy– “What kind of problem” is it?– Used in programmed decisions

Garbage Can model

• Problem preference– Ambiguous

• Unclear, poorly understood technology– Cause and effect relationships ambiguous

• Turnover of participants– Limitations / dynamics of participation

Concept of temporal sorting

• When events occur– Together

• Events occurring together are associated with each other

– Distant in time• Events distant in time are treated as

distant in connections with each other

Importance of “Problems”

• Problems to not appear in particular order• Problems are not inherently important or

solvable• Number of choices attached

– Concepts of:• Recency• Primacy• Urgency• Pressure

Relate to Heuristics

Problem Resolution

• Typically, NOT accomplished• Generally, “flight” or “oversight” is utilized• Resolution only occurs

– When choice opportunity is attached– When system load (energy drains) are light

Possible Results

• What problems get “solved?”• Oversight

– Choice opportunity without problems attached• Problem resolution

– Choice opportunity with problems attached• Flight

– Problems and choice opportunities exceed available energy

Participants in “System

• Reformers– Systematic (rational)

• Optimistic, blind faith in consistency

• Pragmatists– Exploit the system (self-serving)

• Assumes everyone else is naïve

• Enthusiasts– Encourage organization attention/flexibility

• Overestimate tolerance for confusion

Assessing performance of decision “system”

• Activity– Problems attached to choice solutions

• Latency– Problems activated, but not linked to choices

• Decision time– Time that choices remain unmade

• Hard to improve all 3 simultaneously– Related to problem structure– Unstructured problems overload system