assignment of group decision

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making

Torben Emmerling
Duncan Rooders

What we’ve learned from behavioral science.

There are upsides and downsides to making decisions in a group. The main risks include falling into groupthink or other biases that will distort the process and the ultimate outcome. But bringing more minds together to solve a problem has its advantages. To make use of those upsides and increase the chances your team will land on a successful solution, the authors recommend using seven strategies, which have been backed by behavioral science research: Keep the group small, especially when you need to make an important decision. Bring a diverse group together. Appoint a devil’s advocate. Collect opinions independently. Provide a safe space to speak up. Don’t over-rely on experts. And share collective responsibility for the outcome.

When you have a tough business problem to solve, you likely bring it to a group. After all, more minds are better than one, right? Not necessarily. Larger pools of knowledge are by no means a guarantee of better outcomes. Because of an over-reliance on hierarchy, an instinct to prevent dissent, and a desire to preserve harmony, many groups fall into groupthink .

Torben Emmerling is the founder and managing partner of Affective Advisory and the author of the D.R.I.V.E.® framework for behavioral insights in strategy and public policy. He is a founding member and nonexecutive director on the board of the Global Association of Applied Behavioural Scientists ( GAABS ) and a seasoned lecturer, keynote speaker, and author in behavioral science and applied consumer psychology.
DR Duncan Rooders is the CEO of a Single Family Office and a strategic advisor to Affective Advisory . He is a former B747 pilot, a graduate of Harvard Business School’s Owner/President Management program. He is the founder of Behavioural Science for Business (BSB) and an advisor to several international organizations in strategic and team decision-making.”, and a consultant to several international organizations in strategic and financial decision making.

Partner Center

Group Decision Making: Definition, Features, Steps, Methods, Examples, and Pros/Cons

Table of Contents

What is Group Decision Making?

Group decision-making involves individuals collectively making choices from various options, a process where no single member is solely accountable for the decision. This method leverages social dynamics and input from all involved to reach outcomes often different from individual decisions.

In workplace settings, it fosters stakeholder buy-in, consensus building, and creativity. Based on the concept of synergy, collective decisions tend to be more effective than those made by individuals, potentially yielding superior performance outcomes.

Under usual circumstances, collaborative decision-making is preferred, allowing ample time for deliberation, discussion, and dialogue. Committees, teams, or partnerships facilitate this participatory process.

Additionally, group decision-making is a participatory process where multiple individuals collectively analyze problems, consider alternatives, and select solutions. The number of participants, their diversity , and the decision-making process itself significantly impact the effectiveness of group decisions.

Characteristics of Group Decision-Making

Here are five key characteristics of group decision-making:

Collective Responsibility

Group decisions entail shared responsibility among members. Each individual contributes to and is accountable for the final decision, fostering a sense of ownership among the group.

Diverse Perspectives

Group decision-making integrates varied viewpoints, expertise, and experiences. This diversity enriches discussions, leading to a broader consideration of options and potential solutions.

Interactive Process

It involves active interaction among group members. Discussions, debates, and exchanges of ideas are pivotal in shaping and refining decisions.

Read More: 3 Conditions of Decision-Making

Consensus Building

Group decision-making often aims for consensus. The process encourages agreement among members, ensuring that the majority aligns with the chosen solution.

Influenced by Social Dynamics

Social factors like leadership styles, group cohesion, power dynamics, and communication patterns significantly impact the decision-making process and its outcomes. These dynamics can shape the direction and quality of the decision reached.

Steps in Group Decision Making Process

Group decision-making is a complex yet crucial process in any organizational setting. It involves several interconnected stages that navigate from identifying the core issue or opportunity to reflecting on the entire decision-making process for future improvements.

Identifying the Problem or Opportunity

At the outset, the group delves into understanding and defining the issue or opportunity at hand. This phase necessitates clarity and a comprehensive grasp of the problem. Gaining alignment among group members regarding the essence of the situation lays the groundwork for subsequent actions.

Read More: 7 Steps of Decision-Making Process in Management

Generating Alternatives

This phase sparks the essence of creativity within the group. Members collectively brainstorm various potential solutions or courses of action. Encouraging a broad spectrum of ideas, no matter how unconventional they might seem, stimulates innovation and diversity in thinking.

Evaluating Alternatives

Once the pool of potential solutions is established, the group switches gears to critical analysis. Each alternative undergoes scrutiny against predefined criteria. This involves meticulous consideration of the advantages, disadvantages, risks, benefits, and probable outcomes associated with each option.

Decision Making

Collectively, the group moves towards the crucial phase of decision-making. Here, based on the comprehensive evaluation, members collaborate to select the most fitting alternative. The chosen solution aims to effectively address the identified problem or opportunity.

Implementing the Decision

After the decision is made, the focus shifts to practicality. The group formulates an action plan to execute the chosen solution. Assigning responsibilities, delineating timelines, and devising a comprehensive implementation strategy become pivotal.

Read More: What is Operational Decision?

Monitoring and Evaluating

Post-implementation, the decision isn’t left on autopilot. The group meticulously tracks the progress of the implemented solution. Continuous assessment, feedback loops, and evaluations help in gauging the effectiveness of the decision. This phase aids in identifying potential areas that might need adjustments or enhancements.

Closure and Reflection

Finally, the group conducts a comprehensive reflection on the entire decision-making process. This critical step entails introspection into what worked well, areas for improvement, lessons learned, and strategies to enhance future decisions. This reflective process fosters continuous improvement and enhances the group’s decision-making capabilities.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

Let’s explore some advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making:

Advantages:

Diverse Perspectives: Groups bring together individuals with varied expertise, experiences, and viewpoints. This diversity often leads to a comprehensive consideration of options, ensuring a broader outlook on problems or opportunities.
Enhanced Creativity: Collaboration within a group often sparks creativity. Brainstorming and collective idea generation can foster innovative solutions that might not have surfaced through individual decision-making.
Increased Acceptance and Buy-In: Involving multiple stakeholders in the decision-making process boost their engagement and commitment to the chosen solution. This collective involvement often results in a higher level of support and ownership of the decision.

Disadvantages:

Time-Consuming Process: Group decision-making typically involves discussions, debates, and consensus-building, which can be time-consuming. The process might slow down due to conflicting viewpoints or prolonged deliberations.
Potential for Groupthink: Sometimes, group dynamics lead to conformity or groupthink, where individuals suppress dissenting opinions to maintain harmony or follow dominant viewpoints. This can hinder the critical evaluation of alternatives.
Diffusion of Responsibility: In larger groups, the diffusion of responsibility might occur, leading to a lack of accountability or individuals avoiding responsibility for the decision’s outcomes.

Methods of Group Decision Making

The four key group decision-making methods include the following:

Brainstorming

This method involves generating a plethora of ideas in a free-flowing manner without criticism or evaluation. It encourages creativity and diverse thinking among group members. Once ideas are collected, they’re later reviewed and assessed.

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

NGT combines individual idea generation with group discussion and evaluation. Members independently generate ideas, which are then pooled and discussed. Participants vote or rank the ideas, leading to a prioritized list for decision-making.

Delphi Technique

This method gathers insights from dispersed experts without face-to-face interaction. Experts provide input through structured questionnaires or surveys, and subsequent rounds refine ideas based on previous responses. The process continues until a consensus or convergence is reached.

Read More: Personal Decision-Making in Management

Consensus Decision-Making

In this approach, group members work together to find a solution acceptable to all. It involves discussing various perspectives and concerns, aiming for unanimous agreement. If consensus isn’t feasible, a compromise often leads to a decision.

Examples of Group Decision Making

Now let’s explore some examples of how group decisions are being made in workplace settings:

Strategic Planning Meetings

Organizations conduct strategic planning sessions involving key stakeholders, executives, and department heads. During these sessions, groups collaboratively assess market trends, set goals, define strategies, and make critical decisions about the company’s future direction. Through group discussions, they determine objectives and allocate resources to achieve long-term success.

Project Team Decision-Making

Project teams, comprised of individuals from different departments or disciplines, engage in group decision-making. They collectively decide on project timelines, resource allocation, risk management strategies, and course corrections throughout the project lifecycle. Decisions about project scope, milestones, and task assignments are made collaboratively to ensure project success.

Read More: Organizational Decision-Making

Product Development Committees

In businesses, teams comprising product managers, engineers, marketers, and other relevant stakeholders gather to make decisions about new product development or enhancements. These groups evaluate market demands, technological feasibility, cost implications, and customer feedback to decide on features, designs, pricing, and launch strategies.

Cross-functional Problem-Solving Groups

Organizations often form cross-functional teams to address complex challenges or troubleshoot issues affecting different departments. These groups bring diverse expertise together to identify problems, analyze root causes, brainstorm solutions, and implement action plans collaboratively. Their decisions affect organizational processes, efficiency, and performance improvements.

Human Resources Hiring Panels

Hiring decisions in many organizations involve panels or committees consisting of HR professionals, department heads, and team members. They collectively review candidates, conduct interviews, and decide on hiring selections. This group decision-making process ensures a comprehensive evaluation of candidates based on diverse perspectives and skill assessments.

Quick Links

Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy

Support Links

Organizational Behavior
Entrepreneurship
Human Resource

How to run an effective group decision making process

Group decision making is how teams get stuff done. We join forces in order to achieve our goals, creating groups, teams, and whole organizations in order to advance toward a vision. Making decisions on how to move forward is an important part of making this work, but when it comes to group decision making, the process can become messy or ineffective. Why is it so common to argue over whether a group decision was taken or not? When should we decide together, and when is it ok for a group leader to go ahead with a final decision? What are the different ways of taking decisions? Which will work for you and your group members? In this article we’ll cover all you need to know, as a facilitator or team lead, to improve your group decision making.

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators  using SessionLab.

What is group decision-making?

Group decision-making is the act of collectively making a decision as a group, often using voting techniques and discussions to arrive at a consensus or majority.

While a group leader may still make a final decision in some scenarios, group decision making is defined by the fact that everyone in a group has some say in choosing from the option or solutions on the table. A group decision can be as simple as voting on where to hold your next team retreat, or it can be as complex as choosing the future vision for your product or company.

A group decision making process typically guides group members from first ideating on and critically reviewing possible solutions, all the way through to making a final choice. Whats crucial is that

What are the advantages of group decision making?

Choosing among different paths forward is hard enough when we are on our own, and it sounds pretty complicated to do it in a group. Done badly, collective decision-making can be frustrating, take more time, be a source of conflict, and ultimately lead to bad decisions! So, why decide together in the first place? What are the advantages to group decision making?

There are, ultimately, two main advantages to running a group decision making process:

Quality: Diversity of opinions can lead to more sustainable and more innovative solutions; risks can be spotted earlier when more pairs of eyes are scanning the horizon.
Buy-in: When people take part in choosing a course of action, they are more likely to contribute to its implementation.

The quality of a decision made collectively is often better than that made by an individual. During ideation, you often have as many ideas as there are contributors, and when a group discusses possible solutions, they’ll help ensure all bases are covered. Diverse groups are also better positioned to consider creative ideas and other group members may see the blind spots a group leader may have. This second point, buy-in, is often the main driver for opting for participatory, inclusive decision making rules. It’s especially important to include those people who are explicitly involved in implementing the results of a decision.

In the next paragraphs, we will look into how choosing a decision making process determines the level of engagement and participation.

What are the disadvantages of group decision making?

Conversely, there are two main risks associated with group decision making which are worthy to consider. Any group is subject to internal dynamics, and while none of these are blockers to making a decision as a team, it’s imperative you consider these ahead of bringing people together to make a decision.

Groupthink , meaning a situation in which the group chooses harmony over effectiveness. This leads to picking ideas that are low-risk, but also not innovative. The group will tend to coast along; enterprising minds and personal accountability are discouraged.
Timing and efficacy : achieving both effectiveness and inclusion is tricky. Inclusion and participation, especially at first, take a lot of time. In an emergency, a fast decision may be required.

Good facilitation practices are instrumental in avoiding those pitfalls. Mitigate the risk of groupthink by creating an environment of trust, giving space for individual reflection and ideation before sharing, and encouraging “black hat thinking”.

This term, a nod to DeBono’s Six Thinking Hats methodology , refers to having dedicated moments in which to look only at the risks and dangers of choosing a certain path.

The Six Thinking Hats #creative thinking #meeting facilitation #problem solving #issue resolution #idea generation #conflict resolution The Six Thinking Hats are used by individuals and groups to separate out conflicting styles of thinking. They enable and encourage a group of people to think constructively together in exploring and implementing change, rather than using argument to fight over who is right and who is wrong.

As for the second pitfall—taking too long to decide or being ineffective—-this can be true at the start of your journey in collective decision making, but the time it takes will decrease with training, practice and the use of the right group decision making process.

When group confidence is low, or you approach group decision making in a haphazard fashion, it can be hard to reach the point where each group member feels able to make a decision.

The advice in the post is a great way to improve how your group decides together, though you’ll also find this list of group decision making techniques useful if you’re looking for a complete process and framework for collaborative decision making.

Also, a team can become skilled at choosing when to take group decisions , e.g. for overarching policies, and when to leave things up to individual decision making, e.g. in everyday operations. There is absolutely a balance to be found between using decision making when working on complex tasks and also finding a way to enable individual autonomy and avoid additional overhead. Discussing when it’s a good idea to decide together, and when to leave use individual decision making or small delegation, is a great start for a team conversation. Raising the group’s awareness around the topic of decision making is the first step toward improved decisions.

As a general rule of thumb, consider the size and impact of any decision before bringing it to all the members of your group. Involving group members in a decision about what you are having for your lunch isn’t the same as discussing what to order for the whole team!

How to choose a decision making process

How are decisions made in your organization? In most cases, groups rely on a combination of hierarchy (the person in power decides) and informality (someone decides but we don’t know how we got there). Sometimes this works, but a lack of clarity around how we decide can easily lead to resentment , and to faulty implementation. The more hierarchical the structure, the less information will flow to the top, leading to potentially damaging decisions. Furthermore, a decision taken top-down is harder to implement , as people might not understand it, might disagree, or the decision might make it harder for them to do their jobs. In full informality, which is what happens when a group of friends gets together to choose where to have dinner, there is a high risk of creating misunderstandings and conflicts. Who got to choose, and why? Is there a gluten-free option, and if not… well why didn’t you say that your cousin cannot eat pizza?

Awareness is key. The single best advice we can give about creating a decision making process is this: have a conversation around it. Clarify who is deciding what, when. Find out if this works for everyone, or if improvements need to be made. Share a vocabulary of decision-making: is this a consultation? Or is it a collective decision (aka deliberation)? Are we using consent?

In time, by getting familiar with the nuts and bolts of deciding, your team will become nimble at choosing how much decision-making responsibility should be shared and how much is a matter of personal accountability. Topics you might want to cover when creating a group decision making process with your team include:

How are decisions taken in our group?
Is this working well for us? Do we need to change anything?
What decisions do we take together and what is up to individuals?
What happens if a decision is not implemented?
How will I know what was decided (including if I missed the meeting)?

In this article, we have collected some training activities that can help make teams learn more about decision-making while having some fun in the process. Delegation levels, for example, is a training and discussion activity aiming to help a team clarify how much management should get involved in a decision, and when team members have the authority to act on their own.

Delegation Levels #leadership #decision making #agility #empowerment #wondercards The delegation levels are a model help leaders to find the appropriate level of delegation depending on the assessed situation

What decision-making processes can you use?

A healthy culture of decision-making begins with awareness of the different possible ways to take decisions. In short: deciding how to decide! Effective group decision making is built on a shared understand of the process you’ll be using.

In this section, we will look at different possibilities for decision-making processes and rules: when to use them, what the consequences of that choice are in terms of participation and engagement, and what to look out for. It’s a great starting point for improving group decision making in your organization!

How many ways of making decisions do you know? When I ask this question in trainings on group dynamics, participants are generally quick to point out at least these two: person-in-charge decides without consultation (“dictatorship!” say my students of peace studies), and majority vote. For an individual or a majority to decide are the main decision-making rules in the current political landscape, so they easily come to mind. Some digging leads to at least one other: a person-in-charge deciding with consultation . This is a common experience in many workplaces: your boss might ask for advice, but ultimately the choice, and the responsibility, falls with her.

The last two decision-making rules sit at opposite ends of a spectrum in terms of how much effort they require, and how much participation they elicit. A spectrum that runs from randomized methods of group decision making all the way to consent rounds . In the next paragraphs, we’ll go through each one of these group decision making processes and learn more about what they mean, and imply, for facilitating group decisions.

Person-in-charge deciding with consultation

In a consultation, a group is convened to provide support and advice to a person with whom the decision ultimately lies . One interesting point to note is that if the decision making rule is clear, there is no need for the group to reach a final agreement and converge. The group decision making process stops before that, and the decision maker or group leader can take divergent opinions home to mull upon and select later. The only real risk with this decision-making rule is that participants may cater to that one person exclusively, as he is the only one they need to convince: it will be harder to get the group to listen to one another. Participants may hide their own ideas just to please the boss . Good facilitation practices, particularly those that revolve around getting ideas in writing before sharing them and explicitly calling for ideas from other group members, can mitigate this risk, by building an environment of mutual trust in which contrary opinions are welcomed and not immediately shot down.

Person-in-charge deciding without consultation

A person-in-charge deciding without consultation may not be very inclusive, but it can be exactly what is needed in an emergency situation. You probably don’t want the fire brigade to sit down in a circle for an in-depth consultation before taking action! And even outside of emergency scenarios, if the person is an expert in their domain, and the problem is not overly complex (say, your doctor prescribing an antibiotic) this may well be the most appropriate rule.

Trouble brews at the horizon, though, when the town mayor organizes a meeting to discuss the new neighborhood traffic plan with citizens, except that all decisions have already been set in stone. The only possible role left for the attendees are those of passive listeners (or possibly protesters). In fact, a tendency to confuse meetings called for sharing information and for asking for advice has led to a lot of disappointment and mistrust in public participation projects. There is a tight connection between types of decision making rules and levels of engagement. In some group decision making processes (randomization and deciding without consultation), active engagement is discouraged.

Using these processes can be valid based on the decision that needs to be made, but be certain to let every group member know what to expect before joining such a decision making meeting.

Majority vote

In majority voting, in its many variations (50% +1, pondered majority, and so on) the group simply takes a vote, and the decision approved by the majority wins . “All in favor, raise your hands” is the default way of group decision making in many settings, at least in Western culture. It is of course the way democratic countries run elections. It’s fast, it’s efficient, and it is easy to understand. On the other hand, majority voting creates by its very nature an issue with representation of the minority. It is ok to just gloss over their interests? Maybe their point is valid, something the organization should listen to. In all likelihood, if their objections are not, at the very least, heard, they will stand in the way of the decisions’ implementation. Still, majority vote is familiar, scalable, and functional for large numbers of people. In the words of Sam Kaner’s classic Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making, “ When expedience is more important than quality, majority vote strikes a useful balance between a lengthy discussion […] and the lack of deliberation that is the danger of the other extreme.”

At the other end of the spectrum, for very important policy decisions, we find consensus and consent-based decision-making. Similar but different, these are sibling processes for seeking full agreement within a group.

Formal structures designed to reach consensus emerged in facilitation in the 1970s, in connection with direct action and nonviolent protest movements, particularly in the US. Today, they still enjoy a lot of favor in egalitarian groups such as many eco-villages, intentional communities, and cooperatives. The basic idea behind consensus is to seek full alignment and participation in the group, but to do it formally, step-by-step, in order to avoid the risk of groupthink or the effect of secret power plays.

When seeking consensus we seek for a decision “that everyone agrees with”. Agreed-upon hand signs or color codes (green for “full agreement”, red for a “block”) can be used to test the group. If any one person blocks the decision, it’s exactly that: blocked. At that point, the proposal needs to be re-shaped to integrate that person’s objection. As such, any final decision is a reflection of the opinions of every group member – this takes time and more group discussion than other processes. With respect to majority voting, consensus requires a lot more training, and discipline. Its advantages lie in building trust among members of a group, and ensuring participation and enthusiasm for implementing a decision. The power that a single individual has to block a whole group can be mitigated by adaptations, such as “voting to vote” (when a group that is consensus-based can decide to switch methods and vote) or “consensus minus one”.

In consent-based decision making we are not looking for “everyone agrees” but, rather for “nobody disagrees”. You may well be thinking: “But, wait, isn’t it the same thing?” Almost, but not really. To begin with, there is something to be said about the difference it makes in the human psyche to be looking for the “perfect, ideal, best solution for all” (which is where consensus tends to lead) and to be looking for a “good enough for now, safe enough to try” decision, as is the motto of sociocracy, a form of governance that is founded upon consent.

Sociocratisch Centrum co-founder Reijmer has summarized the difference as follows: “ By consensus, I must convince you that I’m right; by consent, you ask whether you can live with the decision “. The organization Sociocracy for All has manuals and materials to learn more about this form of governance, which was ideated by Gerard Endelburg in the 1970s.

While one should be aware that there is a lot more to Sociocratic organizations than the use of consent, I have found that knowing about the process for consent is immensely helpful to my day-to-day facilitation practice. Proposals are written somewhere visible before opening the discussion. Next, the facilitator invites a round of clarification questions: do we fully understand the proposal? Many potential misunderstandings and conflicts are avoided by this simple action. Later come rounds of what are called “quick reactions” which is a space to test how the proposal feels to people. A whole process is therefore followed before even testing for consent. And, furthermore, objections must be grounded in pragmatism and connected to the group’s purpose. This is not about looking for the best possible idea that everyone loves, but about looking for the plausible next step that everyone can live with .

Consent decision-making has many interesting aspects and tweaks that aim to satisfy effectiveness and equivalence at the same time. Despite requiring training and discipline (as well as knowledgeable facilitators!), consent is a phenomenal way of deciding together, especially in policy choices that will benefit from full involvement and engagement of everyone.

In this template you can find a suggested flow of how to go from an initial brainstorming of solutions all the way to consent. Let us know if it works for you! If you have other experiences using Sociocracy and consent decision making, please share them in the comments, or in our Community !

Randomization

Using a randomized method for decisions might seem a bit daft, but it’s a great time-saver if the decision is inconsequential. This might mean picking a name from a hat to set up “secret Santa” matches for a Christmas office game, or throwing a coin to decide if the workshop break is going to be 15 or 20 minutes (something I do all the time). The consequence of using the group decision making technique and letting Lady Luck do the work for you is that people will not be engaged in discussion around the decision . For unimportant decisions, consider picking randomization over deciding yourself, as it’s perceived as more just and fair. As an added bonus, randomized decision-making can be fun and can take the stress out of group decision making.

How to your decision-making process explicit?

By sharing knowledge about different types of decision rules, and their pros and cons, you are building capacity within an organization. Once you know the options on the menu, it’s a matter of sharing, on a case-by-case basis, what kind of decision you are asking people to take today and what group decision making process you will be using? What rules will you be following and who will be included?

By taking that “meta-decision” (how will we decide?) the ground is cleared for clarity and mutual understanding of what is expected from participants in a decision making process.

Different decision making rules lead to different levels of participation. If I know a decision will be taken by the person in charge, they are the ones I am trying to convince. If I know there will be a majority vote, I’ll be aiming to persuade the highest possible number of my peers. If we are working on consent, my attention will go to how aligned my proposal is with the organization’s mission and values. If the decision is random, I’ll relax in my seat and let it go.

The same organization or team is likely to need different types of decisions at different times. Base your choice on the level of importance of the decision, timing considerations and desired levels of engagement.

Getting to convergence: decision making as part of a longer process

The act of taking a decision is only one step in a longer decision making process . That process begins once a problem is stated, and its scope defined (“What do we need to solve?”). And it ends (if ever) once a decision is evaluated and looked back at in retrospect.

Before a decision is made, there must be enough time and space given to exploring options and finding alternatives. In the classic “diamond” of facilitation, codified by Sam Kaner in the Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making , this phase is called divergence. Divergence is the time for brainstorming, creativity and play. It’s when we want to hear all ideas, no matter how improbable. Some teams thrive in divergence and could spend endless hours ideating. But there does come a point when participants have had enough of this stage, and it’s time to move on to what is called convergence. Convergence is the space for categorizing , prioritizing, taking resource allocation into account, being realistic about choices. In between there is the space for emergence, which is when, through a combination of ideas and, often, constructive clashes, something new “emerges”, a solution that was not available in the room before the meeting began.

Each of these phases—divergence, emergence and convergence—requires attention, time, and different types of processes to accompany them. We can pick a brainstorming technique to support divergence, for example. Allowing people to move around different tables and topics of conversation makes emergence of new solutions more likely. Using matrixes and/or prioritization tools, such as dot voting, are great ways to lead a group towards convergence. And once there is a sense of being almost at an agreement, that is, once the convergence phase feels complete, it’s time to move to actual decision making.

Getting to convergence with dot voting

The movement from ideation to decisions is facilitated by activities and tools that help prioritize, categorize, and take into account limiting factors such as the availability of time and resources. Here you can find a list of methods from SessionLab’s library that help with guiding a group towards convergence. Many facilitated decision-making processes go something like this: first we brainstorm options, next we vote on them, and then we choose one or more to continue working on and refining. This sequence can apply, for example, to a consultation process, in which a team lead might ask the group for recommendations on actions to take in the next few months. There does not necessarily need to be “one single answer”, but an indication of interest. What we are looking for is not yet a decision, but a prioritization. And for prioritization, nothing beats dot-voting! Whether you prefer sheets of sticky dots or just giving people markers, whether you are working in the physical world or with votes online, dot-voting allows a group to clearly and quickly visualize preferences and priorities at a glance.

Dotmocracy #action #decision making #group prioritization #hyperisland #remote-friendly Dotmocracy is a simple method for group prioritization or decision-making. It is not an activity on its own, but a method to use in processes where prioritization or decision-making is the aim. The method supports a group to quickly see which options are most popular or relevant. The options or ideas are written on post-its and stuck up on a wall for the whole group to see. Each person votes for the options they think are the strongest, and that information is used to inform a decision.

When inviting group members to prioritize, it’s important to pay attention to the words you use in formulating a question . Rather than using generic terms such as “vote for your favorite” or “put three dots on the idea you think is best”, take some time to consider what kind of direction you are really looking for.

An inspiring version of this comes from John Croft, who suggests asking “Which of these actions, if taken first, will lead to all the others happening?”. That gives a clear sense of looking for priority in time, and speaks to unblocking resources and enabling future actions. Asking “what should we do first?” and asking “which of these actions are most important?” will inevitably yield different results, so this is a question worth carefully pondering!

Here are some things to keep in mind when running a dot-voting activity:

Give participants some quiet time to carefully read the options and think about them individually before beginning to vote;
Set some basic rules, such as “don’t give all your votes to the same option”;
It can make a lot of sense to assign more votes to managers/team leads than other group members , just state this clearly at the start;
Align around criteria: what are we voting for? Are we looking for “our favorite” idea or “the most feasible”?

Dot voting is not the only way to rank options, of course! You can facilitate the shift from divergence to convergence by introducing matrixes and other tools that help prioritize, categorize, and take into account limiting factors such as the availability of time and resources.

Mark clearly when a decision has been taken – Is this now decided?

Viki, one of four graduate students working on a team assignment together, pulled me, their team coach, aside. “Yesterday we had finally decided to go in this direction with the project, but now those two are talking about this other thing!”. Angry at her teammates, and utterly confused, Viki wanted me to step in and stop the rest of the group from continuing to brainstorm new topics. A half-hour or so later, I casually sauntered over to their table: “Hey people, what is going on here?” Hans and Kristin were excited to bring me up to speed on all the new ideas and directions they are going in. Vittoria just rolled her eyes and glanced over to me in desperation. “Ok” I asked “So it looks like you are coming up with lots of great ideas, is that it?” “Yes! And we are loving this process!” Hans was practically jumping up and down in excitement. “So, just to check… have you decided which direction you want to go in? ” “Not yet” from Hans came right at the same time as “Yes, we did!” from Viki. The situation in which part of the group is convinced a decision has been made, so now it’s time to act on it, while another part of the group is sure of the opposite, is a very common one. It’s also a popular source of conflict. Both parties are generally in good faith: this misunderstanding over whether we have decided or not can lead to terrible rifts, as the two begin drifting away from one another in their actions, and pointing fingers. The solution, as Viki’s group quickly figured out after a moment of debriefing and clarification with their coach, is very simple: make this step a part of your group decision making process and mark clearly when a decision has been taken!

How to define when a group decision is made

Every group will find its own way to defining when a decision is open and when it’s been made. The most important piece of advice is common sense: write down decisions in the minutes and clearly state what they are.

Create a bright yellow text box at the very top of the minutes’ template, with each decision written down, roles assigned to its execution, and a deadline for implementation and/or to check on the decision. Beside this, a group can add little rituals: a round of applause, a group cheer, writing the decision on a special whiteboard. Asking: “Does everyone agree?” and in silence, moving on, will not work. Ask for a specific sign of commitment, or you will never know what that silence actually meant.

Give decisions a time limit – When will we check on this decision?

Ending the decision-making process can be frustrating for people with more divergent mindsets, who would like to go on ideating forever. Some team members might, therefore, consciously or not, try to keep the conversation open, possibly from a fear of stifling creativity. Putting a time limit to decisions helps assuage that fear: this is decided for now, but not forever.

Every decision should have a term assigned to it: “this policy will last for one year, then we will reconvene to check on it”. This also means we are ok with decisions being imperfect, as we learn from experiments and failed policies.

Naturally, in order to check whether a decision was effective or not, it needs to come with a set of metrics or targets for evaluation. Metrics can be as rigorous as Key Performance Indicators or more flexible, like Objectives and Key Results, depending on the kind of organization you are working with.

Last but not least, someone needs to be assigned to making sure the decision is implemented and actions are taken. Add names and/or roles to the decision in the minutes!

How to check on a group decision

Reconvening at the end of a decision’s term to check on it is instrumental to a learning organization. Was your final decision the right one? Was every group member happy with the process?

At the end of the term, reconvene the team to take a look back at what worked well and what needs to change. This is key to enabling learning and team growth. Reflections might lead to changing ways you take decisions together, maybe even coming up with a bespoke method adapted to your own team.

Here as SessionLab we use the online tool Team Retro at the end of every project, collecting insights asynchronously then holding a meeting to discuss key points. One of the things we’ve learnt is to spend time in the “What worked well” space to celebrate our wins and build on our strengths. Here are some key points for discussion you can base your retrospective on:

How did implementation go? What worked? What can be improved?
Were metrics met? What enabled this? What made it challenging?
What can we learn from this piece of work?
Shall we prolong the term of the decision as it is, or does it need changes?

In closing

A group decision making process can increase the quality of decisions, include more perspectives, and improve implementation and buy-in. It’s not always easy, but it will help your team grow! Here are some of the key tips for improving collective decision making:

Discuss decision making together, build a shared awareness and vocabulary;
Write decisions on top of the meeting notes and make them available to everyone involved;
Clarify when a decision has been taken vs when it’s still open for discussion;
Give decisions an expiry date or “term”, then check and review them;
Include metrics and expected results in the text of the decision to support such a review.

If you are looking to facilitate better decision-making in your groups and teams, check out these meeting templates for two examples of how decision-making works in a flow of activities:

This template illustrates the case of a team consultation process to set goals for a quarter (and it’s the one we use at SessionLab!);
Here you can find a workshop template for collective deliberation, detailing all the steps from brainstorming to deciding by consent.

Whether it’s the precious resource of our time and how to invest it in a project, or whether we are looking at larger collective problems (such as how to manage the distribution of water resources in a town or region), there are innumerable scenarios that call for effective group decision making.

A well-run, well-facilitated collective process can lead to better decisions, improving the way we work together and saving time, effort, and money in the long run.

Has this article helped you improve your practices? Do you have any application stories to share or further questions? Use the comments or join the conversation in our Community space !

Deborah Rim Moiso is an Endorsed Facilitator with the IAF – International Association of Facilitators and former co-chair of the Italian IAF Chapter.

She is the author of a manual and deck of cards on facilitation available in Italian ( Facilitiamoci! ). Deborah has been working with groups since 2009 in the fields of innovation in education, citizen participation, and environmental conflicts.

Smart detailed advice. May I suggest that facilitators consider alternatives to dot-voting that better deter groupthink and bandwagon effect like using Feedback Frames. https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/feedback-frames-for-prioritizing-a-brainstorm

Feedback Frames provide an efficient, reliable, fun and flexible technique for rating many ideas, with instant visual results. This simple in-person analog tool allows participants to secretly record their opinion of statements along a gradient of agreement by dropping tokens in a range of slots that are hidden by a cover. Results are later revealed as a visual graph of nuanced collective opinions for all to see.

The tool supports a collaborative consensus process while avoiding traditional sticker dot-voting problems such as the bandwagon effect, choice overload and vote-splitting.

What do you think?

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Filter by Keywords

People Management

10 effective group decision-making techniques for teams.

January 19, 2024

Start using ClickUp today

Manage all your work in one place
Collaborate with your team
Use ClickUp for FREE—forever

Group decision-making techniques have a way of transcending individual prowess and creating symphonies of collective intelligence.

These methods celebrate diversity and clear the way for ideas to flow freely, guiding your team toward decisions and success.

From vibrant brainstorming sessions to structured methodologies that harness the power of diverse perspectives, group decision-making is at the heart of modern teamwork. 🤝

This guide explores the best group decision-making techniques to align your team members in a harmonious crescendo of creative ideas and potential solutions.

What is Group Decision-Making?

Importance of group decision-making, common group decision-making challenges, 1. brainstorming sessions, 2. dialectical inquiry, 3. decision tree, 4. devil’s advocacy, 5. democratic decision-making, 6. nominal group technique, 7. delphi technique, 8. unanimous decisions , 9. stand-up meetings, 10. digital decision-making tools.

Group decision-making is a collaborative approach where people collectively discuss, analyze, and evaluate different options to solve problems and find the best solutions. It’s used in various contexts, including business meetings, academic settings, community organizations, and social groups.

Also known as a collective decision-making process , it’s characterized by a group exchanging ideas, perspectives, and information. Team members collaborate as they explore possible solutions and problem-solving methods to achieve a consensus or majority agreement.

For example, a small group might work together to analyze a specific problem within their organization, complete with brainstorming sessions and dynamic meetings.

After carefully exploring different ideas, opinions, and options, the group chooses a solution with the best chance of addressing the issue.

Note that the dynamics of group decision-making involve the interplay of individual opinions, preferences, and expertise within the group, and each of these aspects can influence the outcome.

The importance of group decision-making comes from moving beyond individual brilliance and using collective intelligence to foster innovation and success.

Here are some of the ways group decision-making techniques benefit teams and organizations:

Improve creative problem-solving and streamline processes within your organization by drawing on ideas from all team members, not just leaders and experts
Increase buy-in and enthusiasm for team members and stakeholders by getting them involved and making them feel respected
Mitigate risks and identify potential pitfalls ahead of time by exploring several perspectives on the pros and cons of each option
Leverage the strengths and expertise of your human resources by sharing the process and responsibilities of decision-making methods with everyone

The list could continue, but you’re here for techniques, so we’ll stop there. Long story short, magic happens when a diverse group of people put their minds together.

Like individual decision-making, it’s important to be aware of the potential disadvantages of group decision-making. After all, nothing is perfect, and almost everything can be executed poorly.

One of the most common issues is groupthink. When this happens, the group prioritizes harmony over critical thinking, often leading to flawed and irrational decisions.

Another common problem with collaborative decision-making is that unharmonious team collaboration is often time-consuming. In other words, group decision-making sometimes leads to bad decisions and wasted time.

Group decision making techniques: ClickUp 3.0 Docs Sharing feature

Using proven group decision-making techniques is a great way to avoid these pitfalls and reap benefits like improved creativity, mitigated risks, and engagement.

10 Effective Group Decision-Making Techniques

Every member of the group benefits from finding the right formula for your team’s decision-making prowess. It’s all about determining the right combination your team needs to make better decisions.

You’ll need different decision-making techniques and tools depending on your problem, organization, goals, and group members.

Review these 10 group decision-making techniques and tools to understand what will work for you and your team.

Brainstorming is a group decision-making technique that embraces the spontaneous and collaborative generation of diverse ideas.

In doing so, group members foster creative solutions and encourage the exploration of possibilities without the hindrance of biases.

Not a huge fan of traditional brainstorming? That’s okay!

ClickUp’s Whiteboards have redefined brainstorming and group decision-making processes by providing teams an interactive canvas to transform ideas into impactful actions. It breaks down communication barriers and encourages the free flow of ideas.

Group decision making techniques: team collaborating using ClickUp's Whiteboard

Annotations, comments, and reactions facilitate instant feedback, transforming your Whiteboard into a space where every team member’s input is valued.

ClickUp Collaboration Detection enables everyone—even remote teams—to brainstorm on the same Whiteboard simultaneously, creating a visual symphony of brilliance.

Dialectical inquiry is a structured process that divides team members into two subgroups. Each subgroup then forms and explores a set of opposing viewpoints and contrasting arguments.

After both sides present their alternative solutions, the group debates to agree on a single set of viewpoints. The final decision may incorporate elements from a single approach, both approaches, or neither.

This is a good way to create a meeting agenda that prevents groupthink from sabotaging important decisions.

By systematically exploring conflicting perspectives, dialectical inquiry seeks to uncover hidden assumptions, identify potential pitfalls, and encourage critical thinking. It harnesses the power of constructive conflict, fostering an environment where dissent is a catalyst for innovation.

A decision tree is like an organized brainstorming board that offers a structured visual representation of potential alternatives and outcomes tied to a series of choices or actions. 🌳

Decision trees typically begin with a single node that branches into multiple potential outcomes. Each outcome serves as a node, further branching into additional possibilities and creating a comprehensive map of potential decision pathways.

This approach gets even easier when you use Whiteboards by ClickUp. Whiteboards make creating a visual decision tree simple and map group discussions accordingly. And thanks to the straightforward, user-friendly interface, everyone gets a better idea of the insights and possibilities being explored.

Playing the role of the devil’s advocate is beneficial when done correctly, especially for group decision-making.

You’ll start by assigning one person or a group to become critics of each idea brought to the table. This can prevent groupthink, improve group dynamics, and highlight potentially risky or expensive decisions.

Using team collaboration software like ClickUp makes this easier by giving teams multiple ways to communicate their thoughts and ideas. This technique works for almost all types of meetings , too.

Team members brainstorming using ClickUp's Whiteboard

For instance, imagine a scenario where your group uses ClickUp Whiteboards for their brainstorming session. Here, devil’s advocates seamlessly express their critiques through comments, reactions, and annotations directly linked to specific ideas and thoughts.

This allows the entire team to review and discuss before arriving at the most informed and strategic course of action.

Democratic decision-making does away with the idea of designated decision-makers. It’s a voting system and the majority rules.

This technique works in a few different ways. The most obvious application is to come to your final decision based on a group vote.

However, team members who voted for a different decision than the one that “wins” sometimes don’t feel as passionate about supporting it. If the assigned group leader thinks that this is a possibility, democratic decision-making is also helpful in narrowing down the potential alternatives that your group meetings are discussing.

Questionnaires delivered to the team facilitator keep everyone’s vote anonymous and empower people to vote honestly, which reduces the risk of groupthink.

Democratic voting can also speed up the process of group decision-making when you’ve reached a plateau.

ClickUp’s Form view can streamline vote collection by enabling team members to submit their opinions and preferences in seconds.

The nominal group technique (NGT) harnesses the collective insights of individuals while maintaining a structured approach. In other words, it makes brainstorming a more standardized process .

Group members are encouraged to generate ideas independently and then share them with the group. This speeds up decisions and group consensus, especially for projects that require cross-functional collaboration .

Each team member shares their thoughts without discussion. Once everyone has presented their ideas, the group discusses them to clarify points. A structured voting process then ranks the suggestions by priority and viability.

The Delphi technique distills collective wisdom from subject matter experts while maintaining anonymity. The group assigns a facilitator to pose open-ended questions to a panel of experts for independent and anonymous responses.

The team or facilitator will then compile, summarize, and share these responses with the group of experts to gain further feedback. This compilation, summarization, and sharing process is repeated until a decision is reached.

The Delphi method aims to mitigate the influence of dominant personalities, organizational behavior, and group dynamics so experts can contribute without confrontation.

This systematic exchange of information and opinions is particularly effective for complex decision-making, strategic planning, and other scenarios where diverse expertise is critical.

Unanimity in group decision-making refers to the condition where every person agrees and supports a proposed course of action. 🙌

Teams often approach the unanimity technique as an open discussion, information-sharing, or brainstorming session. The final decision is made once everyone reaches a consensus with collective endorsement and shared perspective.

Achieving this level of harmony and cohesion in a group is great, but it’s often time-consuming. Anyone who’s spent days on jury duty trying to come to a unanimous verdict might (understandably) cringe at the mention of this technique.

With the time element in mind, unanimous decisions are best for situations that demand complete agreement for the success or acceptance of the chosen course of action.

You might want to try other group decision-making techniques on this list for smaller decisions, though.

Stand-up meetings are the opposite of the unanimity group decision-making technique. They’re designed to be short and effective with zero wasted time, so they’re often held standing (or sometimes walking).

These meetings involve each team member taking turns in a round-robin-style discussion, answering simple questions like these:

What did you do yesterday?
What do you plan to do today?
Is anything blocking your progress?

Adjust and expand upon these questions to address the specific decision your team is trying to make. Then, use the ideas and information gathered from this stand-up meeting to decide in a more formal meeting.

The point of the daily standup meeting is to aid team coordination. This fast feedback loop helps teams align and stay on track, similar to a football huddle. If an issue pops up, you can address it quickly and keep projects on track.

ClickUp’s Daily Standup Meeting Template gives you everything you need to plan, take notes, and track project progress. Pair it with ClickUp’s Stand Up Meeting Agenda Template to eliminate the guesswork and improve your team’s group decision-making process.

The right decision-making tools and apps can improve every technique on this list. 🛠️

While we’ve already given some examples of how ClickUp can be used for other techniques on this list, it’s useful for much more than that. Use ClickUp for Teams to assist your team members across almost every facet of project management and decision-making, regardless of the department or how big (or small) your company is.

For example, ClickUp Chat view brings all communication and conversations about the decision together on one platform. This makes it easier to review existing information, ideas, and contributions more efficiently.

Group decision making techniques: ClickUp's Chat view

The ClickUp Communication Plan Template is another great tool to leverage. Use it to improve any (or all) of these techniques with better communication, whether your team is remote, hybrid, or on-site.

That’s just one of over 1,000 templates ClickUp offers for better decision-making, project management, and meeting efficiency.

For example, you can use our task list templates to create a structure for your decision-making meeting ahead of time or work as a team to optimize a task list for a given project.

Digital decision-making tools like ClickUp also save you time by automating daily tasks, generating AI summaries of your meetings, tracking project progress, and keeping team members on the same page.

Harmonize Your Group Decision-Making Process

Choosing the right group decision-making processes is paramount for successful, innovative choices.

Remember, each team member plays a unique role in crafting the collective masterpiece that is a well-thought-out decision. Use the above group decision-making techniques to propel your team members (and organization) toward a happy, harmonious future.

It’s time to embrace techniques like brainstorming, democratic voting, the NGT, and the Delphi method to create an environment that fosters visionary decisions and strategies.

Experience the transformative power of a platform that streamlines your collaborative efforts and turns the diverse voices of your team into a harmonious masterpiece. Sign up for ClickUp today —it’s free!

Questions? Comments? Visit our Help Center for support.

Receive the latest WriteClick Newsletter updates.

Thanks for subscribing to our blog!

Please enter a valid email

Free training & 24-hour support
Serious about security & privacy
99.99% uptime the last 12 months

Your Practical Guide to Group Decision Making

Group decision making is an essential process in various settings, such as businesses, non-profits, and educational institutions. This guide aims to offer a comprehensive yet easy-to-understand approach to effective group decision making. By exploring key concepts, techniques, and real-world applications, you’ll be better prepared to navigate the complexities of making decisions as a group.

What is Group Decision Making

Group decision making is when multiple people come together to make a choice. Instead of one person deciding alone, the group discusses options, shares ideas, and considers different viewpoints to arrive at a decision that everyone can support. This collaborative approach combines diverse perspectives and expertise, often leading to more creative and effective solutions.

The goal is to reach a decision that most, if not all, group members agree on, ensuring better acceptance and commitment. While this process can be more time-consuming and may involve managing disagreements, it ultimately benefits from the collective input and shared responsibility of the group.

Group Decision Making Process

The group decision making process involves several steps to ensure that the group makes an informed and effective choice.

Step 1: Identify the problem as a Group

First, the group identifies the problem. This involves clearly defining what needs to be decided, ensuring everyone understands the problem or goal. Setting clear objectives for what the group aims to achieve with the decision helps guide the rest of the process.

Step 2: Gather information with your group

Next, the group gathers information. Members collect relevant information, facts, and data about the problem. This could include market research, expert opinions, or past experiences. Sharing knowledge among group members ensures everyone has a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Step 3: Generate options as a group

Then, the group generates options. This step involves brainstorming possible solutions or alternatives. The goal is to come up with as many ideas as possible without initially judging them. Encouraging all members to contribute, even if the ideas seem unconventional, can lead to innovative solutions.

Ready to use
Fully customizable template
Get Started in seconds

Step 4: Evaluate options with your group

After generating options, the group evaluates them. Each option is discussed in detail, considering the advantages and disadvantages of each potential solution. The group assesses how practical and feasible each option is in terms of resources, time, and potential impact.

Step 5: Choose the best option with your group

The group then chooses the best option. This might involve using voting, ranking, or consensus methods to narrow down the options to the best one or few. The aim is to reach a decision that most group members support, which might require compromise and additional discussions to address concerns.

Step 6: Implement the decision

Once a decision is made, the group implements it. This involves creating a clear action plan outlining the steps needed to implement the decision, assigning tasks, and setting deadlines. Ensuring the necessary resources, such as budget, personnel, and tools, are available to execute the plan is crucial.

Step 7: Review the decision as a group

Finally, the group reviews the decision. This involves regularly checking the implementation progress to ensure everything is going as planned. The group assesses the results of the decision, asking whether it achieved the objectives, what went well, and what could be improved. Using these insights to improve future decision making processes helps the group make better decisions over time.

Group Decision Making Techniques

When a group needs to make a decision, there are several group decision making methods they can use to ensure the process is effective and everyone’s ideas are considered. Here are some common group decision making methods:

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a technique where group members come together to generate as many ideas as possible without judging them. The goal is to encourage creativity and get a wide range of suggestions. After generating a list of ideas, the group can then evaluate and refine them to find the best solutions.

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

In the Nominal Group Technique, each group member writes down their ideas independently before sharing them with the group. This helps ensure that everyone’s ideas are heard, especially those who might be quieter in group discussions. After sharing, the group discusses and ranks the ideas to identify the best options.

Role-playing

Role-playing is a technique where group members act out different scenarios to explore potential outcomes of various decisions. By putting themselves in different roles, members can gain new perspectives and better understand the implications of their choices. This can be particularly useful for complex or sensitive issues.

Decision tree analysis

The decision tree analysis helps groups evaluate complex decisions by systematically breaking down choices into branches of possible outcomes, each with assigned probabilities. By considering costs, benefits, and risks associated with each path, decision makers can effectively weigh their options and choose the most favorable course of action, promoting informed and strategic decision making within the group.

Delphi method

The Delphi Method involves gathering input from experts anonymously over several rounds. In each round, the experts provide their opinions and receive feedback from the group. This process continues until a consensus is reached. The anonymity helps prevent the influence of dominant personalities and encourages honest feedback.

Multi-voting

Multi-voting is a technique used to narrow down a list of options. Each group member is given a certain number of votes, which they can distribute among the options they prefer. The options with the most votes are then discussed further, helping the group focus on the most popular choices.

Open discussions

Open discussions involve free-form conversations where group members discuss the issue at hand. This technique allows for a lot of flexibility and can lead to in-depth exploration of ideas. However, it requires good facilitation to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that the discussion stays on track.

Explore more;

Effective Decision Making Techniques for Every Situation
Decision Making Tools and Techniques
What Is a Decision-Making Model and How To Choose a Best One
10 Decision Making Frameworks for Decisions That Drive Results
What is a Decision Matrix and How to Use it?
19 Decision Making Tools for Business

Importance of Group Decision Making

Group decision making is important for several reasons,

Diverse perspectives : When multiple people contribute to a decision, they bring different ideas, knowledge, and experiences to the table. This diversity can lead to more creative and innovative solutions that might not be possible with just one person’s viewpoint.
Shared responsibility : Involving everyone in the decision-making process ensures that each member feels ownership and responsibility for the outcome. This increases commitment and motivation to see the decision through.
Better problem solving : Group discussions allow for thorough examination of the problem from different angles. By discussing various options and debating their merits, groups can arrive at more well-rounded decisions that consider various factors and potential consequences.
Improved wuality of decisions : Group decision making reduces the risk of bias or personal preferences influencing the outcome. Through collaboration and debate, groups can make more objective decisions that are based on reasoned analysis and collective wisdom.
Enhanced acceptance and buy-in : When people participate in making a decision, they are more likely to support and accept the final outcome. This reduces resistance to change and increases the likelihood of successful implementation.
Learning and growth : Group decision making fosters a culture of learning and continuous improvement within an organization or team. Members can learn from each other’s perspectives and experiences, improving their own decision-making skills over time.

Pros and Cons of Group Decision Making

Group decision making has both advantages and disadvantages, each impacting how decisions are made and implemented.

Advantages of Group Decision Making

Diverse perspectives : Groups bring together different viewpoints, experiences, and expertise, leading to more creative and innovative solutions.
Shared responsibility : Involving everyone fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to the decision’s outcome.
Improved problem solving : Group discussions allow thorough examination of problems from multiple angles, resulting in well-rounded decisions.
Higher quality decisions : Reduces individual biases through collaboration and reasoned analysis.
Enhanced acceptance : Involvement increases buy-in and reduces resistance to change.
Learning opportunities : Fosters continuous learning and skill development among members.

Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

Time-consuming : Group decision making can be slower due to discussions and consensus-building.
Conflict and disagreements : Differences in opinions can lead to conflicts that require effective resolution.
Groupthink : Pressure for conformity may stifle critical evaluation of ideas.
Dominant personalities : Strong individuals can overshadow diverse perspectives.
Decision paralysis : Difficulty in reaching consensus can lead to indecision.
Diffusion of responsibility : Individual accountability may diminish in larger groups.

Common Group Decision Making Challenges

Group decision making, while beneficial, can encounter several challenges that affect the process and outcomes. Here are some common challenges explained in simple language:

Conflict and disagreements : Differences in opinions among group members can lead to conflicts. When individuals have strong beliefs or preferences, it may be challenging to find consensus or compromise.
Groupthink : Groupthink occurs when the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in a decision being made without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints. This can lead to poor decision quality and missed opportunities.
Dominant personalities : Strong or assertive individuals within the group may dominate discussions, influencing the decision-making process in favor of their own perspectives. This can prevent quieter or more reserved members from contributing fully.
Decision paralysis : Sometimes, groups struggle to make decisions due to an overwhelming number of options or conflicting priorities among members. This indecision can delay progress and lead to frustration.
Time constraints : Group decision making often requires time for discussions, consensus-building, and evaluation of options. In situations where deadlines are tight or urgent decisions are needed, time constraints can add pressure and affect the quality of decisions.
Communication issues : Effective communication is essential for group decision making. Misunderstandings, unclear information sharing, or poor listening skills can hinder the exchange of ideas and compromise the decision-making process.
Risk of satisficing : Satisficing happens when groups settle for a solution that is satisfactory but not optimal. This can occur if the group aims to avoid conflict or quickly reach a decision without fully exploring all possibilities.

How to Use Creately to Streamline Group Decision Making

Creately offers several features that enhance collaboration and facilitate effective decision making within groups:

Creating visual diagrams

Start by creating visual diagrams such as mind maps, flowcharts, decision trees, or SWOT analysis diagrams in Creately. These diagrams help organize information, visualize relationships between ideas, and clarify complex concepts for the group.

Collaborative editing

Invite team members to collaborate in real time on the same diagram. Multiple users can work together, adding ideas, making annotations, and editing the diagram simultaneously. This ensures that everyone’s input is captured and considered during the decision-making process.

Pre-designed templates

Use Creately’s extensive library of templates designed specifically for decision making processes. Choose from templates like decision trees, decision matrices, process flowcharts, and more. These templates provide a structured framework that guides discussions and ensures all relevant factors are considered.

Integration with other tools

Integrate Creately with other productivity tools such as project management software (e.g., Confluence), document management systems (e.g., Google Drive), and communication platforms (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams). This integration ensures seamless access to relevant documents, data, and discussions within the context of decision making.

Commenting and feedback

Use Creately’s commenting and feedback features to facilitate discussions within the diagram. Team members can leave comments directly on specific elements of the diagram, ask questions, provide feedback, or suggest improvements. This promotes clear communication and ensures that everyone’s perspectives are heard.

Voting and consensus building

Employ Creately’s built-in features for voting and polling to gather consensus quickly and transparently. Team members can vote on different options or solutions directly within the diagram, helping to prioritize ideas and reach decisions efficiently.

To achieve success and overcome challenges, teams need effective group decision making. Using collaborative tools and frameworks helps streamline the decision-making process. These tools organize ideas, encourage open communication, and ensure all team members contribute their perspectives. Embracing these practices leads to more informed decisions, encourages team cohesion, and enhances productivity and outcomes. Prioritizing collaboration and leveraging diverse viewpoints helps teams navigate complexities effectively and achieve goals with confidence.

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

10.3 Group Decision Making

Learning Objectives

Explain factors that can lead to process gain in group versus individual decision making.
Explain how groupthink can harm effective group decision making.
Outline the ways that lack of information sharing can reduced decision-making quality in group contexts.
Explain why brainstorming can often be counterproductive to sound decision making in groups.
Describe how group polarization can lead groups to make more extreme decisions than individuals.
Explore important factors that lead juries to make better or worse decisions.

In the previous section, we explored some of the important ways that being in a group affects individual group members’ behavior, and, in turn, influences the group’s overall performance. As well as achieving high levels of performance, another important task of groups is to make decisions. Indeed, we often entrust groups, rather than individuals, with key decisions in our societies—for example, those made by juries and political parties. An important question to ask here is whether we are right to trust groups more than individuals to reach sound decisions. Are many heads really better than one?

It turns out that this question can be a hard one to answer. For one thing, studying decision making is hard, because it is difficult to assess the quality of a decision on the basis of what was known at the time, independently of its outcome. This is particularly challenging as w e naturally tend to look too much at the outcome when we evaluate decision making , a phenomenon known as the outcome bias . Moreover, studying decision making in laboratory environments has generally involved providing group members with more information than they would typically have in the real world (Johnson & Johnson, 2012), and so the results may not always generalize here.

Nevertheless, with these caveats in mind, it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions about when and why groups make better decisions than individuals, and also when and why they may end up making worse ones.

Process Gains in Group versus Individual Decision Making

Process losses due to group conformity pressures: groupthink.

Groups can make effective decisions only when they are able to make use of the advantages outlined above that come with group membership. However, these conditions are not always met in real groups. As we saw in the chapter opener, one example of a group process that can lead to very poor group decisions is groupthink. Groupthink occurs when a group that is made up of members who may actually be very competent and thus quite capable of making excellent decisions nevertheless ends up making a poor one as a result of a flawed group process and strong conformity pressures (Baron, 2005; Janis, 2007).

Groupthink is more likely to occur in groups in which the members are feeling strong social identity—for instance, when there is a powerful and directive leader who creates a positive group feeling, and in times of stress and crisis when the group needs to rise to the occasion and make an important decision. The problem is that groups suffering from groupthink become unwilling to seek out or discuss discrepant or unsettling information about the topic at hand, and the group members do not express contradictory opinions. Because the group members are afraid to express ideas that contradict those of the leader or to bring in outsiders who have other information, the group is prevented from making a fully informed decision. Figure 10.9, “Antecedents and Outcomes of Groupthink,” summarizes the basic causes and outcomes of groupthink.

Although at least some scholars are skeptical of the importance of groupthink in real group decisions (Kramer, 1998), many others have suggested that groupthink was involved in a number of well-known and important, but very poor, decisions made by government and business groups. Key historical decisions analyzed in terms of groupthink include the decision to invade Iraq made by President George Bush and his advisors, with the support of other national governments, including those from the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Australia; the decision of President John F. Kennedy and his advisors to commit U.S. forces to help with an invasion of Cuba, with the goal of overthrowing Fidel Castro in 1962; and the policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany pursued by many European leaders in 1930s, in the lead-up to World War II. Groupthink has also been applied to some less well-known, but also important, domains of decision making, including pack journalism (Matusitz, & Breen, 2012). Intriguingly, groupthink has even been used to try to account for perceived anti-right-wing political biases of social psychologists (Redding, 2012).

Careful analyses of the decision-making process in the historical cases outlined above have documented the role of conformity pressures. In fact, the group process often seems to be arranged to maximize the amount of conformity rather than to foster free and open discussion. In the meetings of the Bay of Pigs advisory committee, for instance, President Kennedy sometimes demanded that the group members give a voice vote regarding their individual opinions before the group actually discussed the pros and cons of a new idea. The result of these conformity pressures is a general unwillingness to express ideas that do not match the group norm.

The pressures for conformity also lead to the situation in which only a few of the group members are actually involved in conversation, whereas the others do not express any opinions. Because little or no dissent is expressed in the group, the group members come to believe that they are in complete agreement. In some cases, the leader may even select individuals (known as mindguards ) whose job it is to help quash dissent and to increase conformity to the leader’s opinions .

An outcome of the high levels of conformity found in these groups is that the group begins to see itself as extremely valuable and important, highly capable of making high-quality decisions, and invulnerable. In short, the group members develop extremely high levels of conformity and social identity. Although this social identity may have some positive outcomes in terms of a commitment to work toward group goals (and it certainly makes the group members feel good about themselves), it also tends to result in illusions of invulnerability, leading the group members to feel that they are superior and that they do not need to seek outside information. Such a situation is often conducive to poor decision making, which can result in tragic consequences.

Interestingly, the composition of the group itself can affect the likelihood of groupthink occurring. More diverse groups, for instance, can help to ensure that a wider range of views are available to the group in making their decision, which can reduce the risk of groupthink. Thinking back to our case study, the more homogeneous the group are in terms of internal characteristics such as beliefs, and external characteristics such as gender, the more at risk of groupthink they may become (Kroon, Van Kreveld, & Rabbie, 1992). Perhaps, then, mixed gender corporate boards are more successful partly because they are better able to avoid the dangerous phenomenon of groupthink.

Cognitive Process Losses: Lack of Information Sharing

Although group discussion generally improves the quality of a group’s decisions, this will only be true if the group discusses the information that is most useful to the decision that needs to be made. One difficulty is that groups tend to discuss some types of information more than others. In addition to the pressures to focus on information that comes from leaders and that is consistent with group norms, discussion is influenced by the way the relevant information is originally shared among the group members. The problem is that group members tend to discuss information that they all have access to while ignoring equally important information that is available to only a few of the members , a tendency known as the shared information bias (Faulmüller, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010; Reimer, Reimer, & Czienskowski (2010).

Research Focus

Poor information sharing in groups.

In one demonstration of the shared information bias, Stasser and Titus (1985) used an experimental design based on the hidden profile task, as shown in Table 10.1. Students read descriptions of two candidates for a hypothetical student body presidential election and then met in groups to discuss and pick the best candidate. The information about the candidates was arranged so that one of the candidates (Candidate A) had more positive qualities overall in comparison with the other (Candidate B). Reflecting this superiority, in groups in which all the members were given all the information about both candidates, the members chose Candidate A 83% of the time after their discussion.

Table 10.1 Hidden Profiles
Group member	Information favoring Candidate A	Information favoring Candidate B
X	a1, a2	b1, b2, b3
Y	a1, a3	b1, b2, b3
Z	a1, a4	b1, b2, b3
This is an example of the type of “hidden profile” that was used by Stasser and Titus (1985) to study information sharing in group discussion. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467–1478. (The researchers’ profiles were actually somewhat more complicated.) The three pieces of favorable information about Candidate B (b1, b2, and b3) were seen by all of the group members, but the favorable information about Candidate A (a1, a2, a3, and a4) was not given to everyone. Because the group members did not share the information about Candidate A, Candidate B was erroneously seen as a better choice.

However, in some cases, the experimenters made the task more difficult by creating a “hidden profile,” in which each member of the group received only part of the information. In these cases, although all the information was potentially available to the group, it was necessary that it be properly shared to make the correct choice. Specifically, in this case, in which the information favoring Candidate B was shared, but the information favoring Candidate A was not, only 18% of the groups chose A, whereas the others chose the inferior candidate. This occurred because although the group members had access to all the positive information collectively, the information that was not originally shared among all the group members was never discussed. Furthermore, this bias occurred even in participants who were given explicit instructions to be sure to avoid expressing their initial preferences and to review all the available facts (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989).

Although the tendency to share information poorly seems to occur quite frequently, at least in experimentally created groups, it does not occur equally under all conditions. For one, groups have been found to better share information when the group members believe that there is a correct answer that can be found if there is sufficient discussion (Stasser & Stewart, 1992), and if they are forced to continue their discussion even after they believe that they have discussed all the relevant information (Larson, Foster-Fishman, & Keys, 1994). These findings suggest that an important job of the group leader is to continue group discussion until he or she is convinced that all the relevant information has been addressed.

The structure of the group will also influence information sharing (Stasser & Taylor, 1991). Groups in which the members are more physically separated and thus have difficulty communicating with each other may find that they need to reorganize themselves to improve communication. And the status of the group members can also be important. Group members with lower status may have less confidence and thus be unlikely to express their opinions. Wittenbaum (1998) found that group members with higher status were more likely to share new information. However, those with higher status may sometimes dominate the discussion, even if the information that they have is not more valid or important (Hinsz, 1990). Groups are also likely to share unique information when the group members do not initially know the alternatives that need to be determined or the preferences of the other group members (Mojzisch & Schulz-Hardt, 2010; Reimer, Reimer, & Hinsz, 2010).

Findings showing that groups neither share nor discuss originally unshared information have very disconcerting implications for group decision making because they suggest that group discussion is likely to lead to very poor judgments. Not only is unshared information not brought to the table, but because the shared information is discussed repeatedly, it is likely to be seen as more valid and to have a greater influence on decisions as a result of its high cognitive accessibility. It is not uncommon that individuals within a working group come to the discussion with different types of information, and this unshared information needs to be presented. For instance, in a meeting of a design team for a new building, the architects, the engineers, and the customer representatives will have different and potentially incompatible information. Thus leaders of working groups must be aware of this problem and work hard to foster open climates that encourages information sharing and discussion.

Given its obvious pitfalls, an interesting question to ask is why the shared information bias seems to be so pervasive. Recalling the confirmation bias that we discussed in the chapter on social cognition, perhaps it reflects this tendency played out at the group level, where group members collaborate to provide confirmatory evidence for each other’s positions. Leading on from this, it could also reflect the tendency for people to wish to use groups to reinforce their own views. Perhaps sometimes groups become places where people seek to mutually validate each other’s shared perspectives, to the detriment of them searching out the alternatives. If these ideas are correct, given that we often choose to associate with similar others, then it may be important to seek out the views of group members that are likely to be most different from our own, in seeking to weaken the damaging effects of the shared information bias (Morrow & Deidan, 1992).

Cognitive Process Losses: Ineffective Brainstorming

One technique that is frequently used to produce creative decisions in working groups is known as brainstorming. The technique was first developed by Osborn (1953) in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of group sessions at his advertising agency. Osborn had the idea that people might be able to effectively use their brains to “storm” a problem by sharing ideas with each other in groups. Osborn felt that creative solutions would be increased when the group members generated a lot of ideas and when judgments about the quality of those ideas were initially deferred and only later evaluated. Thus brainstorming was based on the following rules:

Each group member was to create as many ideas as possible, no matter how silly, unimportant, or unworkable they were thought to be.
As many ideas as possible were to be generated by the group.
No one was allowed to offer opinions about the quality of an idea (even one’s own).
The group members were encouraged and expected to modify and expand upon other’s ideas.

Researchers have devoted considerable effort to testing the effectiveness of brainstorming, and yet, despite the creativeness of the idea itself, there is very little evidence to suggest that it works (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Stroebe & Diehl, 1994). In fact, virtually all individual studies, as well as meta-analyses of those studies, find that regardless of the exact instructions given to a group, brainstorming groups do not generate as many ideas as one would expect, and the ideas that they do generate are usually of lesser quality than those generated by an equal number of individuals working alone who then share their results. Thus brainstorming represents still another example of a case in which, despite the expectation of a process gain by the group, a process loss is instead observed.

A number of explanations have been proposed for the failure of brainstorming to be effective, and many of these have been found to be important. One obvious problem is social loafing by the group members, and at least some research suggests that this does cause part of the problem. For instance, Paulus and Dzindolet (1993) found that social loafing in brainstorming groups occurred in part because individuals perceived that the other group members were not working very hard, and they matched they own behavior to this perceived norm. To test the role of social loafing more directly, Diehl and Stroebe (1987) compared face-to-face brainstorming groups with equal numbers of individuals who worked alone; they found that face-to-face brainstorming groups generated fewer and less creative solutions than did an equal number of equivalent individuals working by themselves. However, for some of the face-to-face groups, the researchers set up a television camera to record the contributions of each of the participants in order to make individual contributions to the discussion identifiable. Being identifiable reduced social loafing and increased the productivity of the individuals in the face-to-face groups; but the face-to-face groups still did not perform as well as the individuals.

Even though individuals in brainstorming groups are told that no evaluation of the quality of the ideas is to be made, and thus that all ideas are good ones, individuals might nevertheless be unwilling to state some of their ideas in brainstorming groups because they are afraid that they will be negatively evaluated by the other group members. When individuals are told that other group members are more knowledgeable than they are, they reduce their own contributions (Collaros & Anderson, 1969), and when they are convinced that they themselves are experts, their contributions increase (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987).

Although social loafing and evaluation apprehension seem to cause some of the problem, the most important difficulty that reduces the effectiveness of brainstorming in face-to-face groups is that being with others in a group hinders opportunities for idea production and expression. In a group, only one person can speak at a time, and this can cause people to forget their ideas because they are listening to others, or to miss what others are saying because they are thinking of their own ideas , a problem known as production blocking . Considered another way, production blocking occurs because although individuals working alone can spend the entire available time generating ideas, participants in face-to-face groups must perform other tasks as well, and this reduces their creativity.

Diehl and Stroebe (1987) demonstrated the importance of production blocking in another experiment that compared individuals with groups. In this experiment, rather than changing things in the real group, they created production blocking in the individual conditions through a turn-taking procedure, such that the individuals, who were working in individual cubicles, had to express their ideas verbally into a microphone, but they were only able to speak when none of the other individuals was speaking. Having to coordinate in this way decreased the performance of individuals such that they were no longer better than the face-to-face groups.

Follow-up research (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991) showed that the main factor responsible for productivity loss in face-to-face brainstorming groups is that the group members are not able to make good use of the time they are forced to spend waiting for others. While they are waiting, they tend to forget their ideas because they must concentrate on negotiating when it is going to be their turn to speak. In fact, even when the researchers gave the face-to-face groups extra time to perform the task (to make up for having to wait for others), they still did not reach the level of productivity of the individuals. Thus the necessity of monitoring the behavior of others and the delay that is involved in waiting to be able to express one’s ideas reduce the ability to think creatively (Gallupe, Cooper, Grise, & Bastianutti, 1994).

Although brainstorming is a classic example of a group process loss, there are ways to make it more effective. One variation on the brainstorming idea is known as the nominal group technique (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). The nominal group technique capitalizes on the use of individual sessions to generate initial ideas, followed by face-to-face group meetings to discuss and build on them. In this approach, participants first work alone to generate and write down their ideas before the group discussion starts, and the group then records the ideas that are generated. In addition, a round-robin procedure is used to make sure that each individual has a chance to communicate his or her ideas. Other similar approaches include the Delphi technique (Clayton, 1997; Hornsby, Smith, & Gupta, 1994) and Synectics (Stein, 1978).

Contemporary advances in technology have created the ability for individuals to work together on creativity tasks via computer. These computer systems, generally known as group support systems, are used in many businesses and other organizations. One use involves brainstorming on creativity tasks. Each individual in the group works at his or her own computer on the problem. As he or she writes suggestions or ideas, they are passed to the other group members via the computer network, so that each individual can see the suggestions of all the group members, including their own.

A number of research programs have found that electronic brainstorming is more effective than face-to-face brainstorming (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Gallupe, Cooper, Grise, & Bastianutti, 1994; Siau, 1995), in large part because it reduces the production blocking that occurs in face-to-face groups. Groups that work together virtually rather than face-to-face have also been found to be more likely to share unique information (Mesmer-Magnus, DeChurch, Jimenez-Rodriguez, Wildman, & Schuffler, 2011). Each individual has the comments of all the other group members handy and can read them when it is convenient. The individual can alternate between reading the comments of others and writing his or her own comments and therefore is not required to wait to express his or her ideas. In addition, electronic brainstorming can be effective because it reduces evaluation apprehension, particularly when the participants’ contributions are anonymous (Connolly, Routhieaux, & Schneider, 1993; Valacich, Jessup, Dennis, & Nunamaker, 1992).

In summary, the most important conclusion to be drawn from the literature on brainstorming is that the technique is less effective than expected because group members are required to do other things in addition to being creative. However, this does not necessarily mean that brainstorming is not useful overall, and modifications of the original brainstorming procedures have been found to be quite effective in producing creative thinking in groups. Techniques that make use of initial individual thought, which is later followed by group discussion, represent the best approaches to brainstorming and group creativity. When you are in a group that needs to make a decision, you can make use of this knowledge. Ask the group members to spend some time thinking about and writing down their own ideas before the group begins its discussion.

Group Polarization

One common decision-making task of groups is to come to a consensus regarding a judgment, such as where to hold a party, whether a defendant is innocent or guilty, or how much money a corporation should invest in a new product. Whenever a majority of members in the group favors a given opinion, even if that majority is very slim, the group is likely to end up adopting that majority opinion. Of course, such a result would be expected, since, as a result of conformity pressures, the group’s final judgment should reflect the average of group members’ initial opinions.

Although groups generally do show pressures toward conformity, the tendency to side with the majority after group discussion turns out to be even stronger than this. It is commonly found that groups make even more extreme decisions, in the direction of the existing norm, than we would predict they would, given the initial opinions of the group members. Group polarization is said to occur when, after discussion, the attitudes held by the individual group members become more extreme than they were before the group began discussing the topic (Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006; Myers, 1982). This may seem surprising, given the widespread belief that groups tend to push people toward consensus and the middle-ground in decision making. Actually, they may often lead to more extreme decisions being made than those that individuals would have taken on their own.

Group polarization was initially observed using problems in which the group members had to indicate how an individual should choose between a risky, but very positive, outcome and a certain, but less desirable, outcome (Stoner, 1968). Consider the following question:

Frederica has a secure job with a large bank. Her salary is adequate but unlikely to increase. However, Frederica has been offered a job with a relatively unknown startup company in which the likelihood of failure is high and in which the salary is dependent upon the success of the company. What is the minimum probability of the startup company’s success that you would find acceptable to make it worthwhile for Frederica to take the job? (choose one)

1 in 10, 3 in 10, 5 in 10, 7 in 10, 9 in 10

Research has found group polarization on these types of decisions, such that the group recommendation is more risky (in this case, requiring a lower probability of success of the new company) than the average of the individual group members’ initial opinions. In these cases, the polarization can be explained partly in terms of diffusion of responsibility (Kogan & Wallach, 1967). Because the group as a whole is taking responsibility for the decision, the individual may be willing to take a more extreme stand, since he or she can share the blame with other group members if the risky decision does not work out.

But group polarization is not limited to decisions that involve risk. For instance, in an experiment by Myers and Kaplan (1976), groups of students were asked to assess the guilt or innocence of defendants in traffic cases. The researchers also manipulated the strength of the evidence against the defendant, such that in some groups the evidence was strong and in other groups the evidence was weak. This resulted in two groups of juries—some in which the majority of the students initially favored conviction (on the basis of the strong evidence) and others in which a majority initially favored acquittal (on the basis of only weak evidence). The researchers asked the individuals to express their opinions about the guilt of the defendant both before and after the jury deliberated.

As you can see in Figure 10.10, “Group Polarization,” the opinions that the individuals held about the guilt or innocence of the defendants were found to be more extreme after discussion than they were, on average, before the discussion began. That is, members of juries in which the majority of the individuals initially favored conviction became more likely to believe the defendant was guilty after the discussion, and members of juries in which the majority of the individuals initially favored acquittal became more likely to believe the defendant was innocent after the discussion. Similarly, Myers and Bishop (1970) found that groups of college students who had initially racist attitudes became more racist after group discussion, whereas groups of college students who had initially antiracist attitudes became less racist after group discussion. Similar findings have been found for groups discussing a very wide variety of topics and across many different cultures.

The juries in this research were given either strong or weak evidence about the guilt of a defendant and then were either allowed or not allowed to discuss the evidence before making a final decision. Demonstrating group polarization, the juries that discussed the case made significantly more extreme decisions than did the juries that did not discuss the case. Data are from Myers and Kaplan (1976).

Group polarization does not occur in all groups and in all settings but tends to happen most often when two conditions are present: First, the group members must have an initial leaning toward a given opinion or decision. If the group members generally support liberal policies, their opinions are likely to become even more liberal after discussion. But if the group is made up equally of both liberals and conservatives, group polarization would not be expected. Second, group polarization is strengthened by discussion of the topic. For instance, in the research by Myers and Kaplan (1976) just reported, in some experimental conditions, the group members expressed their opinions but did not discuss the issue, and these groups showed less polarization than groups that discussed the issue.

Group polarization has also been observed in important real-world contexts, including financial decision making in corporate boardrooms (Cheng & Chiou, 2008; Zhu, 2010). It has also been argued that the recent polarization in political attitudes in many countries, for example in the United States between the “blue” Democratic states versus the “red” Republican states, is occurring in large part because each group spends time communicating with other like-minded group members, leading to more extreme opinions on each side. And some have argued that terrorist groups develop their extreme positions and engage in violent behaviors as a result of the group polarization that occurs in their everyday interactions (Drummond, 2002; McCauley, 1989). As the group members, all of whom initially have some radical beliefs, meet and discuss their concerns and desires, their opinions polarize, allowing them to become progressively more extreme. Because they are also away from any other influences that might moderate their opinions, they may eventually become mass killers.

Group polarization is the result of both cognitive and affective factors. The general idea of the persuasive arguments approach to explaining group polarization is cognitive in orientation. This approach assumes that there is a set of potential arguments that support any given opinion and another set of potential arguments that refute that opinion. Furthermore, an individual’s current opinion about the topic is predicted to be based on the arguments that he or she is currently aware of. During group discussion, each member presents arguments supporting his or her individual opinions. And because the group members are initially leaning in one direction, it is expected that there will be many arguments generated that support the initial leaning of the group members. As a result, each member is exposed to new arguments supporting the initial leaning of the group, and this predominance of arguments leaning in one direction polarizes the opinions of the group members (Van Swol, 2009). Supporting the predictions of persuasive arguments theory, research has shown that the number of novel arguments mentioned in discussion is related to the amount of polarization (Vinokur & Burnstein, 1978) and that there is likely to be little group polarization without discussion (Clark, Crockett, & Archer, 1971). Notice here the parallels between the persuasive arguments approach to group polarization and the concept of informational conformity.

But group polarization is in part based on the affective responses of the individuals—and particularly the social identity they receive from being good group members (Hogg, Turner, & Davidson, 1990; Mackie, 1986; Mackie & Cooper, 1984). The idea here is that group members, in their desire to create positive social identity, attempt to differentiate their group from other implied or actual groups by adopting extreme beliefs. Thus the amount of group polarization observed is expected to be determined not only by the norms of the ingroup but also by a movement away from the norms of other relevant outgroups. In short, this explanation says that groups that have well-defined (extreme) beliefs are better able to produce social identity for their members than are groups that have more moderate (and potentially less clear) beliefs. Once again, notice the similarity of this account of polarization to the notion of normative conformity.

Group polarization effects are stronger when the group members have high social identity (Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, & Hogg, 1990; Hogg, Turner, & Davidson, 1990; Mackie, 1986). Diane Mackie (1986) had participants listen to three people discussing a topic, supposedly so that they could become familiar with the issue themselves to help them make their own decisions. However, the individuals that they listened to were said to be members of a group that they would be joining during the upcoming experimental session, members of a group that they were not expecting to join, or some individuals who were not a group at all. Mackie found that the perceived norms of the (future) ingroup were seen as more extreme than those of the other group or the individuals, and that the participants were more likely to agree with the arguments of the ingroup. This finding supports the idea that group norms are perceived as more extreme for groups that people identify with (in this case, because they were expecting to join it in the future). And another experiment by Mackie (1986) also supported the social identity prediction that the existence of a rival outgroup increases polarization as the group members attempt to differentiate themselves from the other group by adopting more extreme positions.

Taken together then, the research reveals that another potential problem with group decision making is that it can be polarized. These changes toward more extreme positions have a variety of causes and occur more under some conditions than others, but they must be kept in mind whenever groups come together to make important decisions.

Social Psychology in the Public Interest

Decision making by a jury.

Although many countries rely on the decisions of judges in civil and criminal trials, the jury is the foundation of the legal system in many other nations. The notion of a trial by one’s peers is based on the assumption that average individuals can make informed and fair decisions when they work together in groups. But given all the problems facing groups, social psychologists and others frequently wonder whether juries are really the best way to make these important decisions and whether the particular composition of a jury influences the likely outcome of its deliberation (Lieberman, 2011).

As small working groups, juries have the potential to produce either good or poor decisions, depending on many of the factors that we have discussed in this chapter (Bornstein & Greene, 2011; Hastie, 1993; Winter & Robicheaux, 2011). And again, the ability of the jury to make a good decision is based on both person characteristics and group process. In terms of person variables, there is at least some evidence that the jury member characteristics do matter. For one, individuals who have already served on juries are more likely to be seen as experts, are more likely to be chosen as jury foreperson, and give more input during the deliberation (Stasser, Kerr, & Bray, 1982). It has also been found that status matters—jury members with higher-status occupations and education, males rather than females, and those who talk first are more likely be chosen as the foreperson, and these individuals also contribute more to the jury discussion (Stasser et al., 1982). And as in other small groups, a minority of the group members generally dominate the jury discussion (Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983), And there is frequently a tendency toward social loafing in the group (Najdowski, 2010). As a result, relevant information or opinions are likely to remain unshared because some individuals never or rarely participate in the discussion.

Perhaps the strongest evidence for the importance of member characteristics in the decision-making process concerns the selection of death-qualified juries in trials in which a potential sentence includes the death penalty. In order to be selected for such a jury, the potential members must indicate that they would, in principle, be willing to recommend the death penalty as a punishment. In some countries, potential jurors who indicate being opposed to the death penalty cannot serve on these juries. However, this selection process creates a potential bias because the individuals who say that they would not under any condition vote for the death penalty are also more likely to be rigid and punitive and thus more likely to find defendants guilty, a situation that increases the chances of a conviction for defendants (Ellsworth, 1993).

Although there are at least some member characteristics that have an influence upon jury decision making, group process, as in other working groups, plays a more important role in the outcome of jury decisions than do member characteristics. Like any group, juries develop their own individual norms, and these norms can have a profound impact on how they reach their decisions. Analysis of group process within juries shows that different juries take very different approaches to reaching a verdict. Some spend a lot of time in initial planning, whereas others immediately jump right into the deliberation. And some juries base their discussion around a review and reorganization of the evidence, waiting to take a vote until it has all been considered, whereas other juries first determine which decision is preferred in the group by taking a poll and then (if the first vote does not lead to a final verdict) organize their discussion around these opinions. These two approaches are used about equally often but may in some cases lead to different decisions (Hastie, 2008).

Perhaps most important, conformity pressures have a strong impact on jury decision making. As you can see in Figure 10.11, when there are a greater number of jury members who hold the majority position, it becomes more and more certain that their opinion will prevail during the discussion. This is not to say that minorities cannot ever be persuasive, but it is very difficult for them. The strong influence of the majority is probably due to both informational conformity (i.e., that there are more arguments supporting the favored position) and normative conformity (people are less likely to want to be seen as disagreeing with the majority opinion).

This figure shows the decisions of six-member mock juries that made “majority rules” decisions. When the majority of the six initially favored voting guilty, the jury almost always voted guilty, and when the majority of the six initially favored voting innocent, the jury almost always voted innocence. The juries were frequently hung (could not make a decision) when the initial split was three to three. Data are from Stasser, Kerr, and Bray (1982).

Research has also found that juries that are evenly split (three to three or six to six) tend to show a leniency bias by voting toward acquittal more often than they vote toward guilt, all other factors being equal (MacCoun & Kerr, 1988). This is in part because juries are usually instructed to assume innocence unless there is sufficient evidence to confirm guilt—they must apply a burden of proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The leniency bias in juries does not always occur, although it is more likely to occur when the potential penalty is more severe (Devine et al., 2004; Kerr, 1978).

Given what you now know about the potential difficulties that groups face in making good decisions, you might be worried that the verdicts rendered by juries may not be particularly effective, accurate, or fair. However, despite these concerns, the evidence suggests that juries may not do as badly as we would expect. The deliberation process seems to cancel out many individual juror biases, and the importance of the decision leads the jury members to carefully consider the evidence itself.

Key Takeaways

Under certain situations, groups can show significant process gains in regards to decision making, compared with individuals. However, there are a number of social forces that can hinder effective group decision making, which can sometimes lead groups to show process losses.
Some group process losses are the result of groupthink—when a group, as result of a flawed group process and strong conformity pressures, makes a poor judgment.
Process losses may result from the tendency for groups to discuss information that all members have access to while ignoring equally important information that is available to only a few of the members.
Brainstorming is a technique designed to foster creativity in a group. Although brainstorming often leads to group process losses, alternative approaches, including the use of group support systems, may be more effective.
Group decisions can also be influenced by group polarization—when the attitudes held by the individual group members become more extreme than they were before the group began discussing the topic.
Understanding group processes can help us better understand the factors that lead juries to make better or worse decisions.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

Consider a time when a group that you belonged to experienced a process gain, and another time showed a process loss in terms of decision making. Which of the factors discussed in this section do you think help to explain these two different outcomes?
Describe a current social or political issue where you have seen groupthink in action. What features of groupthink outlined in this section were particularly evident? When in your own life have you been in a group situation where groupthink was evident? What decision was reached and what was the outcome for you?
When have you been in a group that has not shared information effectively? Why do you think that this happened and what were the consequences?
Outline two situations, one when you were in a group that used brainstorming and you feel that it was helpful to the group decision-making process, and another when you think it was a hindrance. Why do you think the brainstorming had these opposite effects on the groups in the two situations?
What examples of group polarization have you seen in the media recently? How well do the ideas of normative and informational conformity explain why polarization occurred in these situations? What other factors might also have been at work?
If you or someone you knew had a choice to be tried by either a judge or a jury, taking into account the research in this section, which would you choose, and why?

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., & Hogg, M. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology , 29, 97–119.

Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 219–253). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (1), 63–67.

Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (2006). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. In J. M. Levine & R. L. Moreland (Eds.), Small groups (pp. 265–287). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Cheng, P.-Y., & Chiou, W.-B. (2008). Framing effects in group investment decision making: Role of group polarization. Psychological Reports, 102 (1), 283–292.

Clark, R. D., Crockett, W. H., & Archer, R. L. (1971). Risk-as-value hypothesis: The relationship between perception of self, others, and the risky shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20 , 425–429.

Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17 (4), 373–386. doi: 10.1080/0144341970170401.

Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, I. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53 , 159–163.

Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., & Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the effectiveness of group brainstorming: Test of one underlying cognitive mechanism. Small Group Research, 24 (4), 490–503.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes . Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 , 531–537.

Devine, D. J., Olafson, K. M., Jarvis, L. L., Bott, J. P., Clayton, L. D., & Wolfe, J. M. T. (2004). Explaining jury verdicts: Is leniency bias for real? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 (10), 2069–2098.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (3), 497–509.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (3), 392–403.

Drummond, J. T. (2002). From the Northwest Imperative to global jihad: Social psychological aspects of the construction of the enemy, political violence, and terror. In C. E. Stout (Ed.), The psychology of terrorism: A public understanding (Vol. 1, pp. 49–95). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Ellsworth, P. C. (1993). Some steps between attitudes and verdicts. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Faulmüller, N., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Beyond group-level explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13 (5), 653–671.

Forsyth, D. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gallupe, R. B., Cooper, W. H., Grise, M.-L., & Bastianutti, L. M. (1994). Blocking electronic brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (1), 77–86.

Hastie, R. (1993). Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hastie, R. (2008). What’s the story? Explanations and narratives in civil jury decisions. In B. H. Bornstein, R. L. Wiener, R. Schopp, & S. L. Willborn (Eds.), Civil juries and civil justice: Psychological and legal perspectives (pp. 23–34). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hinsz, V. B. (1990). Cognitive and consensus processes in group recognition memory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (4), 705–718.

Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11 (1), 77–100.

Hornsby, J. S., Smith, B. N., & Gupta, J. N. D. (1994). The impact of decision-making methodology on job evaluation outcomes: A look at three consensus approaches. Group and Organization Management, 19 (1), 112–128.

Janis, I. L. (2007). Groupthink. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 157–169). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (2012). Joining together – group theory and group skills (11th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kerr, N. L. (1978). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (12), 1431–1442.

Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1967). Risky-shift phenomenon in small decision-making groups: A test of the information-exchange hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3 , 75–84.

Kramer, R. M. (1998). Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How well has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73 (2–3), 236–271.

Kroon, M. B., Van Kreveld, D., & Rabbie, J. M. (1992). Group versus individual decision making: Effects of accountability and gender on groupthink. Small Group Research , 23(4), 427-458.

Larson, J. R. J., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). The discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 , 446–461.

Lieberman, J. D. (2011). The utility of scientific jury selection: Still murky after 30 years. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (1), 48–52.

MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1), 21–33.

Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (4), 720–728.

Mackie, D. M., & Cooper, J. (1984). Attitude polarization: Effects of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , u575–585.

Matusitz, J., & Breen, G. (2012). An examination of pack journalism as a form of groupthink: A theoretical and qualitative analysis. Journal Of Human Behavior In The Social Environment , 22 (7), 896-915.

McCauley, C. R. (1989). Terrorist individuals and terrorist groups: The normal psychology of extreme behavior. In J. Groebel & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Terrorism: Psychological perspectives (p. 45). Sevilla, Spain: Universidad de Sevilla.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115 (2), 214–225.

Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others’ preferences degrades the quality of group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (5), 794–808.

Morrow, K. A., & Deidan, C. T. (1992). Bias in the counseling process: How to recognize and avoid it. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 571-577.

Myers, D. G. (1982). Polarizing effects of social interaction. In H. Brandstatter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocher-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Contemporary problems in group decision-making (pp. 125–161). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 169 (3947), 778–779. doi: 10.1126/science.169.3947.778

Myers, D. G., & Kaplan, M. F. (1976). Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 (1), 63–66.

Najdowski, C. J. (2010). Jurors and social loafing: Factors that reduce participation during jury deliberations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 28 (2), 39–64.

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination . Oxford, England: Scribner’s.

Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (4), 575–586.

Redding, R. E. (2012). Likes attract: The sociopolitical groupthink of (social) psychologists. Perspectives On Psychological Science , 7 (5), 512-515.

Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Czienskowski, U. (2010). Decision-making groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: A meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 77 (1), 121–142.

Reimer, T., Reimer, A., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Naïve groups can solve the hidden-profile problem. Human Communication Research, 36 (3), 443–467.

Siau, K. L. (1995). Group creativity and technology. Psychosomatics, 31 , 301–312.

Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63 , 426–434.

Stasser, G., & Taylor, L. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 675–684.

Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (1), 67–78.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1467–1478.

Stein, M. I. (1978). Methods to stimulate creative thinking. Psychiatric Annals, 8 (3), 65–75.

Stoner, J. A. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4 , 442–459.

Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5 , 271–303.

Valacich, J. S., Jessup, L. M., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1 (3), 219–241.

Van Swol, L. M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4 (3), 185–199.

Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Novel argumentation and attitude change: The case of polarization following group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8 (3), 335–348.

Watson, G. (1931). Do groups think more effectively than individuals? In G. Murphy & L. Murphy (Eds.), Experimental social psychology. New York: Harper.

Winter, R. J., & Robicheaux, T. (2011). Questions about the jury: What trial consultants should know about jury decision making. In R. L. Wiener & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 63–91). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

Wittenbaum, G. M. (1998). Information sampling in decision-making groups: The impact of members’ task-relevant status. Small Group Research, 29 (1), 57–84.

Zhu, H. (2010). Group polarization on corporate boards: Theory and evidence on board decisions about acquisition premiums, executive compensation, and diversification. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ziller, R. (1957). Group size: A determinant of the quality and stability of group decision. Sociometry, 20, 165-173.

Image Descriptions

Figure 10.9 Antecedents and Outcomes of Groupthink.

Antecedent conditions:

Time pressures and stress
High cohesiveness and social identity
Isolation from other sources of information
Directive, authoritative leadership

These conditions lead to symptoms of groupthink:

Illusions of invulnerability
Illusions of unanimity
In-group favoritism
Little search for new information
Belief in morality of the group
Pressure on dissenters to conform to group norms

Eventually it results in poor decision making.

[Return to Figure 10.9]

Naturally, tend to look too much at the outcome when we evaluate decision-making,

When a group that is made up of members who may actually be very competent and thus quite capable of making excellent decisions nevertheless ends up making a poor one as a result of a flawed group process and strong conformity pressures.

Whose job it is to help quash dissent and to increase conformity to the leader’s opinions.

Group members tend to discuss information that they all have access to, while ignoring equally important information that is available to only a few of the members.

Only one person can speak at a time, and this can cause people to forget their ideas because they are listening to others, or to miss what others are saying because they are thinking of their own ideas.

When, after discussion, the attitudes held by the individual group members become more extreme than they were before the group began discussing the topic.

Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International H5P Edition Copyright © 2022 by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

2.6 Group Decision-Making

What are the advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making, and how can a manager improve the quality of group decision-making?

Involving more people in the decision-making process can greatly improve the quality of a manager's decisions and outcomes. However, involving more people can also increase conflict and generate other challenges. We turn now to the advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making.

Advantages of Group Decisions

An advantage to involving groups in decision-making is that you can incorporate different perspectives and ideas. For this advantage to be realized, however, you need a diverse group. In a diverse group, the different group members will each tend to have different preferences, opinions, biases, and stereotypes. Because a variety of viewpoints must be negotiated and worked through, group decision-making creates additional work for a manager, but (provided the group members reflect different perspectives) it also tends to reduce the effects of bias on the outcome. For example, a hiring committee made up of all men might end up hiring a larger proportion of male applicants (simply because they tend to prefer people who are more similar to themselves). But with a hiring committee made up of an equal number of men and women, the bias should be cancelled out, resulting in more applicants being hired based on their qualifications rather than their physical attributes.

Having more people involved in decision-making is also beneficial because each individual brings unique information or knowledge to the group, as well as different perspectives on the problem. Additionally, having the participation of multiple people will often lead to more options being generated and to greater intellectual stimulation as group members discuss the available options. Brainstorming is a process of generating as many solutions or options as possible and is a popular technique associated with group decision-making.

All of these factors can lead to superior outcomes when groups are involved in decision-making. Furthermore, involving people who will be affected by a decision in the decision-making process will allow those individuals to have a greater understanding of the issues or problems and a greater commitment to the solutions.

Disadvantages of Group Decisions

Group decision-making is not without challenges. Some groups get bogged down by conflict, while others go to the opposite extreme and push for agreement at the expense of quality discussions. Groupthink occurs when group members choose not to voice their concerns or objections because they would rather keep the peace and not annoy or antagonize others. Sometimes groupthink occurs because the group has a positive team spirit and camaraderie, and individual group members don’t want that to change by introducing conflict. It can also occur because past successes have made the team complacent.

Often, one individual in the group has more power or exerts more influence than others and discourages those with differing opinions from speaking up ( suppression of dissent ) to ensure that only their own ideas are implemented. If members of the group are not really contributing their ideas and perspectives, however, then the group is not getting the benefits of group decision-making.

How to Form a Quality Group

Effective managers will try to ensure quality group decision-making by forming groups with diverse members so that a variety of perspectives will contribute to the process. They will also encourage everyone to speak up and voice their opinions and thoughts prior to the group reaching a decision. Sometimes groups will also assign a member to play the devil’s advocate in order to reduce groupthink. The devil’s advocate intentionally takes on the role of critic. Their job is to point out flawed logic, to challenge the group’s evaluations of various alternatives, and to identify weaknesses in proposed solutions. This pushes the other group members to think more deeply about the advantages and disadvantages of proposed solutions before reaching a decision and implementing it.

The methods we’ve just described can all help ensure that groups reach good decisions, but what can a manager do when there is too much conflict within a group? In this situation, managers need to help group members reduce conflict by finding some common ground—areas in which they can agree, such as common interests, values, beliefs, experiences, or goals. Keeping a group focused on a common goal can be a very worthwhile tactic to keep group members working with rather than against one another. Table 2.3 summarizes the techniques to improve group decision-making.

Summary of Techniques That May Improve Group Decision-Making
Type of Decision	Technique	Benefit
Group decisions	Have diverse members in the group.	Improves quality: generates more options, reduces bias
	Assign a devil’s advocate.	Improves quality: reduces groupthink
	Encourage everyone to speak up and contribute.	Improves quality: generates more options, prevents suppression of dissent
	Help group members find common ground.	Improves quality: reduces personality conflict

Decision-making is a crucial daily activity for managers. Decisions range from small and simple, with straightforward answers, to big and complex, with little clarity about what the best choice will be. Being an effective manager requires learning how to successfully navigate all kinds of decisions. Expertise, which develops gradually through learning and experience, generally improves managerial decision-making, but managers rarely rely solely on their own expertise. They also conduct research and collect information from others; they pay attention to their own biases and to ethical implications; and they think critically about the information that they have received to make decisions that will benefit the organization and its stakeholders.

Concept Check

Explain why group decision-making can be more effective than individual decision-making.
What are some things that can prevent groups from making good decisions?
As a manager, what can you do to enhance the quality of group decision-making?

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction

Authors: David S. Bright, Anastasia H. Cortes
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Principles of Management
Publication date: Mar 20, 2019
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/2-6-group-decision-making

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Group Decision Making

The performance of a group involves taking into account the needs and opinions of every group member. It is important for the functioning of the group to be able come to an equitable decision as efficiently as possible. There are a variety of ways to make decisions as a group. The seven-step decision-making model presented below offers an effective structure for choosing an appropriate course of action for a particular task or project. It can also be an effective method for dealing with a problem or interpersonal conflict that arises within the group.

Seven-step decision-making model

What are the particulars of the assigned task?
What are we being asked to do?
What conflict is affecting our group effectiveness?
What barrier to effective group work are we facing?
What is causing the problem?
For whom is this a problem?
What is wrong with the current situation?
Why do we need to deal with this issue/decision?
Where else can we find resources?
What would make a solution/decision successful?
What issues need to be dealt with in the solution?
What criteria will help us determine whether everyone is happy with the solution/decision?
Are some criteria more necessary than others?
What are some possible solutions that would meet most of our established criteria?
Are there any options that we may have overlooked?
What could we do in the absence of constraints?
What are the pros/cons for each option?
Which option is the most realistic to accomplish for now?
Which option is the most likely to solve the problem for the long-term?
Decide: What should be done? How? By whom? By when? In what order?
Monitor and evaluate the outcome. Based on the criteria identified in step 3, evaluate whether the decision was successful. If not, revisit step 4 to evaluate the other options or generate new ones.

Decision-making methods

In order to make the jump from brainstorming potential solutions for solving a problem to evaluating and selecting the best solution, group members need to make decisions. There are several possible methods of decision making that a group can use. A few of them are briefly described below with advantages and disadvantages.

Decision by authority

The group generates ideas and holds open discussions, but the final decision is made by one person.

Appropriate when there is a clear expert in the topic at hand
Does not maximize the strengths of the individuals in the group
The group may not be dedicated to implementing a decision made by one person

Decision by majority

The group holds a vote on a particular issue following a period of discussion. The majority wins.

Uses democratic participation in the process
Tyranny of the majority often overwhelms minority views, perhaps encouraging factions to form within the group

Decision by negative minority

The group holds a vote for the most unpopular idea and eliminates it. They repeat this process until only one idea is left.

Useful when there are many ideas and few voters
Group members may feel resentful at having their ideas voted as unpopular

Decision by ranking

Group members individually write down the 5 (or fewer) ideas they like best, then rank each idea from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best. The votes are recorded on the board and totalled. The idea with the highest total is selected.

Includes a voting procedure and, therefore, gives the impression that the final decision represents each person’s opinion.
Not suitable for some issues
The numbers game can result in a decision that no one fully supports

Decision by unanimity

All group members must agree that the decision is the best one.

Everyone will be on board with the decision and resulting course of action
Unanimous agreement might be impossible to reach

Decision by consensus

The decision is discussed and negotiated until everyone affected by it understands and agrees with what will be done. Consensus in decision making means that all members genuinely agree that the decision is acceptable. After a group has identified a decision to be made, each member is asked how they feel about the proposed decision by selecting one of the following responses:

I can say an unqualified “yes” to the decision.
I find the decision acceptable.
I can live with the decision, but I’m not especially enthusiastic about it.
I do not fully agree with the decision, but I do not choose to block it.
I do not agree with the decision, and I feel we should explore other options.

If all the responses from the group members are 1, 2, 3, or 4, you have a consensus and are ready to move on. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of decision by consensus:

All members feel that they have had an equal opportunity to influence the decision and will continue to support the group
The best way to make decisions, if you have the time
May be difficult to reach a consensus
May be very time consuming

Combining ideas

Instead of dropping one idea in favor of another, the group searches for possibilities of implementing both or combining them into one solution.

Polarizing (black-and-white) decisions are avoided
Implementation may take longer since more than one idea is being considered
A decision that combines two solutions can sometimes be worse than either of the original solutions

Example of the seven-step decision-making model:

Identify the decision to be made..

When should our group meetings be scheduled?

Analyze the issue under discussion.

Determine each member’s current schedule of prior commitments (e.g., classes, activities). Are weekends and nights a possibility? How much time we will need for each meeting? How often should meetings be scheduled?

Establish criteria.

The ideal meeting time would meet these criteria, in order of importance:

Not conflict with any member’s school or extra-curricular schedule.
Be at a time that is optimal for group productivity (that is, when energy levels are highest, and when members would be most prepared to participate).
Be during daytime working hours.

Brainstorm potential solutions.

These are the times when all group members are free from prior commitments:

Mondays 12 to 1:30 p.m.
Wednesdays 6 to 7:30 p.m.
Fridays 9 to 10:30 a.m.

Evaluate the options and select the best one.

Mondays 12:00 to 1:30 p.m..

Pros:	Cons:

Wednesdays 6:00 to 7:30 p.m.

Fridays 9:00 to 10:30 a.m., best solution:.

Wednesdays 6:00 to 7:30 is determined to be the most favourable time and chosen as the meeting time based on the criteria. The group decided -- by consensus -- that this would be the time during which they would be the most productive, having just finished their dinner break. This meeting time is not in agreement with the third criteria (that is, the ideal meeting would be during daytime working hours), but this was ranked as the least important, so a compromise was made.

Implement the solution.

Choose group members to:

Book the meeting room
Confirm the time/location with all group members
Appoint group roles for each member for meetings (see optimizing group performance tips sheet)

Monitor and evaluate the outcome.

The conditions for success, based on the stated criteria:

Regular attendance by all group members.
All group members are active participants during meetings.
If unforeseen scheduling conflicts arise, the group will have to revisit step 4 to determine a more suitable meeting time.

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the CTE Support page to find the most relevant staff member to contact.

CTE Teaching Tips

Group Roles: Maximizing Group Performance.
Teamwork Skills: Being an Effective Group Member .
Making Group Contracts .

Moore, C.M. (1987) Group Techniques for Idea Building. Newbury Park: Sage Publications

Parker, G. (1998) Teamwork: Action Steps for building powerful teams. Aurora, IL: Successories

Shalinsky, W. and S. Snider (1985) Working in Small Groups: How to Do It Better. University of Waterloo: TRACE

Wilson, G.L. and M.S. Hanna (1986) Groups in Context: Leadership and Participation in Small Groups. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.

Catalog search

Teaching tip categories.

Assessment and feedback
Blended Learning and Educational Technologies
Career Development
Course Design
Course Implementation
Inclusive Teaching and Learning
Learning activities
Support for Student Learning
Support for TAs
Learning activities ,

Group Decision Making: 4 Techniques You Should Know

Group decision making is when multiple people work together to look at problems and issues, analyze the information they have available, and come up with effective solutions they can all agree with and act upon. As the saying goes, two heads are better than one. The idea is that as more minds work on a problem, the better the outcome will be. Philip G. Zimbardo put it best when he said, “Research shows that the decisions of a group as a whole are more thoughtful and creative when there is minority dissent than when it is absent.” In other words, it’s good when people with different points of view become part of a group as their voice joins with others as everyone comes to a decision together.

What to Know Before Making Group Decisions

Researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the ideal group size for group decision-making. One study done by Harvard Business Review found that the best size consists of seven people. Other studies show that the more people there are in a group, the more likely it is that decision-making problems will increase. For example, researchers from Princeton determined that smaller groups lead to more accurate decisions. For all their disagreements, experts do seem to agree that groups should consist of an odd number of people so disputes can be settled through a majority vote if needed.

Group Decision Making Techniques

The delphi technique.

For many people, remote work has become the new normal. However, just because people are in different locations doesn’t mean groups won’t have to make decisions. In cases where people work in separate areas, try the Delphi Technique. First started by the Rand Corporation, each member of the group works first as an individual coming up with their own ideas. Then, they all post their solutions to the same platform. This might be done through an email, a project management software, an electronic bulletin board, or a messaging app. You might even hold a virtual meeting where everyone shares their ideas with the team.

How to Follow the Delphi Technique

Brainstorming.

Perhaps the most well-known method of group decision-making is brainstorming. This is when a group gathers in the same place (either physically or virtually) and works on coming up with solutions to a specific problem. During this process, members of the group quickly share their ideas, while one person records these thoughts in a way that everyone can see them. Furthermore, group members also discuss the solutions, providing their own opinions on the merits of each one. Once everyone has shared their solutions, the group then works together to make a selection.

How to Brainstorm

Nominal group technique.

Unlike brainstorming, the nominal group technique is a bit more structured. With this type of group decision-making, group members privately work on creating their own list of solutions. During the group meeting, each member shares a single item from their list. One major difference between this and brainstorming is that while people share their ideas, others can only ask clarifying questions. They are not allowed to provide their own opinions on the proposed solutions. After all the ideas are shown, the group ranks solutions based on individual preference. Voting continues until the group makes a final decision.

How to Practice Nominal Group Technique

Dialectical inquiry technique.

Dialectical inquiry is a method that uses debate and argument to reach a decision. Like the other group decision-making techniques, the team meets together to discuss a problem and come up with solutions. However, this strategy takes a look at each solution and has the group divide into two smaller groups. Each group represents a side either in favor of the idea or against it. From there, the groups debate each other, pointing out the strengths and flaws in each side.

How to Use Dialectical Inquiry Technique

Methods for making a final decision.

Even once you know which technique you want to use, coming to that final decision is not always easy. Emotions can sometimes run high, and disagreements can be fierce. With this in mind, it’s important to settle on what method you’ll use when making a final decision. That method can be broken down into the following categories.

Majority Decision

Use this method when you:, negative minority, how famous leaders handle group decision making, jeff bezos, amazon.

At Amazon, Jeff Bezos is a big believer in reaching decisions quickly. In a letter to shareholders, Bezos explained that in order to stay competitive, companies need to come to decisions as fast as possible. Even if disagreements occur, in his view, it’s better decisions are made than there being no decisions at all.

Larry Page, Google

Alfred sloan, general motors, group decision making: being part of the team.

Group decision-making goes hand in hand with the 5 step decision-making process . These tools allow people to look at a problem from all sides and come up with a decision that everyone can follow. By promoting group decision-making, businesses will see greater unity within their organization. Workers will feel like they’re an important part of the group, allowing them the opportunity to chime in on decisions both small and large. And with more minds tackling a problem, a successful solution is sure to follow.

Product overview
All features
Latest feature release
App integrations

CAPABILITIES

project icon Project management
Project views
Custom fields
Status updates
goal icon Goals and reporting
Reporting dashboards
workflow icon Workflows and automation
portfolio icon Resource management
Capacity planning
Time tracking
my-task icon Admin and security
Admin console
asana-intelligence icon Asana AI
list icon Personal
premium icon Starter
briefcase icon Advanced
Goal management
Organizational planning
Campaign management
Creative production
Content calendars
Marketing strategic planning
Resource planning
Project intake
Product launches
Employee onboarding
View all uses arrow-right icon
Project plans
Team goals & objectives
Team continuity
Meeting agenda
View all templates arrow-right icon
Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
Events Find out about upcoming events near you
Partners Learn more about our partner programs
Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.

6 strategies to make group decisions quickly

Group decision making techniques provide cross-functional teams the framework to foster constructive discussions regarding important business decisions. Learn about how you can use group decision making frameworks to make decisions quickly.

Making a decision for a group of people can be a major undertaking. Things get even more complicated when you’re making crucial business decisions and have to consider finances, investor needs, and the goals of different cross-functional teams. Establishing a decision-making framework ahead of time helps you to reduce external distractions and follow a predetermined series of steps to make the most logical decision as a group. Using group decision making frameworks can help cross-functional teams make the right decisions, quickly.

What is a group decision making technique?

A group decision making technique is a framework that you can use to help a group with several different decision makers.These frameworks can be especially helpful when you’re working with decision makers across teams and departments because it helps provide decision makers with the different perspectives from cross-functional teams. The best kind of group decision making techniques takes the opinion of everyone in the group into consideration. Using the right group decision making technique for the right project can help save your team time, increase efficiency, and encourage collaboration.

Decision-making tools for agile businesses

In this ebook, learn how to equip employees to make better decisions—so your business can pivot, adapt, and tackle challenges more effectively than your competition.

Make good choices, fast: How decision-making processes can help businesses stay agile ebook banner image

5 tips for making good group decisions

Making good group decisions is important, especially when working with cross-functional teams. To ensure that you include everyone’s opinions, use these tips:

Clarify the goal and category of the decision. Making a group decision can be challenging if you’re working cross-functionally. This is because each team has their own individual goal and needs for a final decision. It’s also important to consider the category of the decision. Type one decisions are decisions that are extremely challenging to reverse. Type two decisions are reversible, easily fixed and reversed if the outcome doesn’t quite reflect what your team expected. Make sure it’s clear to everyone on the team how permanent this decision is.

Use a RACI chart. Before even making a decision, using a RACI chart ensures that everybody on the decision making group understands their role and responsibilities within this specific decision making process.

Foster a safe discussion space. Decision making requires a lot of brainstorming, discussion, and sharing of ideas. Fostering a safe space is an important part of establishing a psychologically safe workplace for your employees. The more your team is willing to share ideas, the more likely it is your team will make great decisions for your company.

Communicate the final decision clearly. Once the decision is made, it should be communicated to those who are impacted in an efficient manner. This is a good opportunity to develop a communication plan to ensure that everyone gets the information they need.

The 6 different group decision making techniques

Making a decision within a group of people is challenging when there’s no structure involved. This is especially true when business leaders have to make decisions across different departments who all have their own goals to consider. Here are six different decision making processes that you can use to help groups find the right decision for them.

1. Traditional brainstorming

Basic brainstorming is one of the easiest ways to get ideas flowing within a group of people. During this time, everyone comes up with different possible end decisions and shares their ideas with the team, but no ideas are turned down until later. While this type of decision making strategy is great for coming up with potential ideas, it’s rarely used to make a final decision.

Good for : Generating new ideas, getting input from the entire group

2. Decision tree analysis

A decision tree analysis is a type of chart that maps out how one decision can result in many different outcomes. Think of this strategy like the butterfly effect—your team is looking at many different potential outcomes based on one single decision. This technique works really well when you’re trying to look for a solution to a long-term issue. It works especially well for cross-functional teams, because then everyone can visualize how it affects different parts of the business. A decision tree can help your team identify potential risks and problems with other solutions, which can help save time and money in the long run.

Good for : Identifying how a single decision can affect different teams or departments

3. Delphi method

Named after the Oracle of Delphi, this framework assigns one person in the group as a key decision maker. The team gathers ideas from a general brainstorm, and then presents them to the group leader to eliminate some options. Once the leader narrows down choices, the decision goes back to the team for more discussion so they can also eliminate some options. This goes back and forth between the group leader and the rest of the team until you reach a final decision. This technique works well for teams that have a dedicated project manager, like Agile or Scrum teams.

Good for: Narrowing down a large group of choices down to one, teams that have a dedicated project manager

4. Dialectical inquiry

A dialectical inquiry requires two options that your team is deciding between. From there, your team splits up into two teams: one to debate the pros and one to debate the cons of each decision. This strategy is good if your team is torn between two different options. This gives you the option to thoroughly discuss the opportunities and weaknesses of each alternative.

Good for: Making a final decision between two choices

5. Nominal group technique

If you’re trying to make a final group decision on a sensitive topic, or want to provide your team with a little bit more anonymity to the decision, the nominal group technique is a good option. Each group member provides options or feedback in a written or digital manner, explaining their reasoning for why they believe it’s the best option. After hearing the arguments and discussions of all of the choices, the team then ranks all of the different options from best to worst. The option that’s ranked number one then becomes the final decision.

Good for: Giving more anonymity to group members

6. Consensus mapping

This process starts with traditional brainstorming strategies and then pools categorically similar ideas together. This helps the team members break down each potential solution by category, instead of as different individual options. For example, if your team is considering implementing work management software, you may segment different options based on the use case of each team. This outlines different options by needs or use case. From there, you can eliminate the options that don’t fit into the required categories. Consensus mapping is best used for complex, enterprise-level issues because it takes into account different categories or needs of a specific issue.

Good for: Complex issues or enterprise-level decision making

Keep tabs on all important decisions in one place with a central source of truth. A work management platform like Asana helps consolidate important decision making information in one place, so all decision makers are on the same page.

Related resources

10 tips to improve nonverbal communication

Scaling clinical trial management software with PM solutions

How to build your critical thinking skills in 7 steps (with examples)

4 ways to establish roles and responsibilities for team success

Business Management
Career development
Communication & Skills
Finance & Accounting
Marketing & Sales
Self introduction
Strategy & Innovation
Business Tools

Group Decision-Making Process: Key Methods for Better Outcomes

Disclaimer : We sometimes use affiliate links in our content. For more information, visit our Disclaimer Page .

Effective group decision-making is essential to the success of any team or organization. It involves the collaboration of team members with diverse skills and backgrounds, who come together to discuss, evaluate, and choose the best course of action.

In this article, we will explore the group decision-making process, techniques, and methods that can help teams make more informed and effective decisions. We will also discuss the advantages and challenges of group decision-making, and provide practical tips to enhance your team’s decision-making abilities.

Please enable JavaScript

What is Group Decision-Making?

Group decision-making is a process where a group of individuals works together to analyze a problem, evaluate alternative solutions, and choose the best course of action. This approach to decision-making involves teamwork, communication, and collaboration among group members, and often results in more creative and effective solutions compared to individual decision-making.

Advantages of Group Decision-Making

There are several advantages to group decision-making, including:

Diverse Perspectives : Heterogeneous groups with demographic diversity can offer a wider range of perspectives, experiences, and expertise, leading to more well-rounded decisions.
Improved Creativity : Group decision-making can lead to more creative ideas and alternative solutions, as group members build upon each other’s thoughts and suggestions.
Higher Job Satisfaction : Involving team members in the decision-making process can lead to higher job satisfaction and a greater sense of ownership and commitment to the final decision.
Reduced Risk : Group decision-making can help to identify potential risks and hidden challenges that may not be apparent to a single decision-maker.
Enhanced Problem-Solving : Working together in a group can lead to more effective problem-solving, particularly for complex tasks that require diverse skills and knowledge.

Challenges of Group Decision-Making

Despite its advantages, group decision-making can also face certain challenges, such as:

Groupthink : Group members may feel pressured to conform to the opinions of others, leading to a lack of critical thinking and evaluation of alternative solutions.
Risky Shift : Groups may sometimes make riskier decisions than individuals, as group members may feel less personally responsible for the outcome.
Time-Consuming : Group decision-making can take longer than individual decision-making, as it involves discussion, debate, and consensus-building among group members.
Dominant Personalities : Strong-willed or dominant group members may unduly influence the decision-making process, potentially skewing the final decision.

Related : Rational Decision-Making Process

Group Decision-Making Techniques and Methods

There are various group decision-making techniques and methods that can help teams overcome these challenges and make more effective decisions. Some popular techniques include:

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a group decision-making technique where group members gather to generate as many ideas as possible, without evaluating or criticizing them. A brainstorming session typically involves a group leader who encourages group members to share their thoughts and ideas freely. The group leader records all the ideas on a flip chart or an electronic bulletin board, and the group collectively evaluates and ranks the proposed solutions at the end of the session.

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

The nominal group technique is a structured group decision-making method that helps to minimize the influence of dominant personalities and promotes equal participation from all group members.

In NGT, group members write down their ideas individually, and then take turns sharing and discussing them with the group. The group then ranks the ideas, and the highest-ranked idea is chosen as the final decision.

Delphi Technique

The Delphi technique is a group decision-making method that relies on a panel of experts who provide anonymous input and feedback through multiple rounds of questionnaires. This process helps to avoid groupthink and the influence of dominant personalities, as the experts’ opinions are collected independently and anonymously.

The group leader consolidates the responses, provides a summary to the panel, and repeats the process until a consensus is reached or the group leader decides to conclude the exercise on behalf of each group member.

Dialectical Inquiry

Dialectical inquiry is a group decision-making technique that involves creating two opposing teams to debate and challenge each other’s proposed solutions. This approach encourages critical thinking, stimulates creative ideas, and helps to identify potential risks and hidden challenges that might not be apparent in a less confrontational setting.

The group leader moderates the debate and ensures that all team members have the opportunity to express their views. Following the debate, the group discusses the merits of each proposed decision and selects the best solution.

Majority Rules

Majority rules are a group decision-making method in which group members vote on the proposed solutions, and the option with the most votes is chosen as the final decision.

This method is simple and efficient, but it may not always lead to the most creative or optimal solution, as it relies on the preferences of the majority. To overcome this limitation, the group can engage in further discussion and evaluation of the alternatives before voting, or combine majority rules with other group decision-making techniques.

Consensus Decision-Making

Consensus decision-making is a collaborative process where all group members work together to reach an agreement on the final decision. This approach involves open communication, active listening, and empathy, as group members seek to understand and address each other’s concerns and preferences.

Consensus decision-making can be time-consuming, but it often results in higher levels of commitment, satisfaction, and ownership among group members.

Related : Collaborative Decision-Making Process

Tips for Effective Group Decision-Making

To ensure that your group decision-making process is efficient and effective for making group decisions, consider the following tips:

Define the problem clearly : Make sure that all group members understand the problem or issue at hand, and agree on the objectives and criteria for evaluating the possible solutions.
Encourage open communication : Create an environment where group members feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, ideas, and concerns without fear of judgment or criticism.
Promote active listening : Encourage group members to listen carefully to each other’s opinions and ideas, and ask clarifying questions to ensure that they fully understand the points being made.
Avoid groupthink : Foster a culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness, and remind group members that it’s okay to challenge or disagree with the majority opinion.
Manage conflict effectively : Address conflicts and disagreements constructively, and ensure that all group members have the opportunity to express their views and concerns.
Balance efficiency and thoroughness : While it’s important to decide promptly, make sure that the group doesn’t rush through the decision-making process at the expense of thorough analysis and evaluation of the alternatives.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the decision-making process : After the final decision has been made, assess the group’s decision-making process to identify areas for improvement, and implement changes as needed.

Related : Steps to the Decision-Making Process as a Manager

Effective group decision-making is an essential skill for successful teams and organizations. By understanding the various group decision-making methods, and techniques, and applying the tips for effective group decision-making, teams can make more informed, creative, and optimal decisions. By fostering a culture of open communication, critical thinking, and collaboration, teams can overcome the challenges of group decision-making and unlock their full potential.

What is the difference between individual and group decision-making?

How can a group avoid groupthink during the decision-making process, what are some common challenges faced in group decision-making, how can a group leader facilitate effective group decision-making, what are some examples of group decision-making techniques and methods, related posts:.

4 Key Leadership Skills for Effective Decision-Making
Collaborative Decision-Making Process: The Key to Effective Team Decisions
Examples of Positive Interpersonal Behavior for Career Success
Team Goal Setting: Navigating the Benefits & Challenges for Success

How to Use the Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process

Top decision-making techniques for managers, related posts.

Essential Employee Onboarding Checklist – Streamline HR

How to Start a Business: A Step-by-Step Guide for Entrepreneurs

What Is Non-Disclosure Agreement for Employment Interview

Navigate Site

Privacy and Policy
Terms and Conditions

Welcome Back!

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Project Management Group Decision-Making Techniques: Strategies for Effective Team Consensus

Daily Jobs › Project Management

Group Decision-Making Techniques: Strategies for Effective Team Consensus

group decision making process and techniques

Much like a time tracker meticulously records the passage of moments, group decision-making involves the careful consideration of ideas and perspectives to arrive at the best possible outcome. Making decisions as part of a group can be challenging. First, you need the right people – experts in the field. Next, you need to get them to talk and agree on the issue at hand. And this is where problems begin. Everyone has their own opinion, and no one wants to compromise. Knowing how to apply group decision making skills correctly is the solution you need.

In this article, we’ll help you uncover:

✅ How to establish an effective group decision-making process? ✅ What are the best group decision-making methods? ✅ What are the pros and cons of group decision making? ✅ How to make group decision-making effective?

Group decision-making basics

Before we get to the steps on how to organize the decision-making process, let’s look at what group decision-making is.

Some people fall into the misconception that teamwork and decision-making group activity is pretty much the same.

Group decision-making and teamwork involve multiple individuals that analyze various issues and situations and consider how to solve them. However, as Katenback and Smith point out in their book The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization, group decision-making and teamwork have their specific differences. Here are the most significant ones:


	Each group member is independent	Teammates rely on themselves and their mates
	Decision-making groups have a leader	Teams share leadership roles
	Group performance can’t be measured directly	Team performance and work outcomes can be measured
	Group members discuss, decide, and delegate	Team members discuss, decide, and do the work

The overall effectiveness of group decision-making depends on many factors. For example, time constraints or any underlying conflicts can impact the group decision-making outcomes. That’s why, before problems occur, it’s vital to establish group decision-making procedures and monitor them along with their implementation.

Group decision-making process (step by step)

Now that we’ve established the basics, below are the steps to implementing the most effective group decision-making process!

1. Planning 📝

At the planning stage, you need to decide how you decide and know it is successful. This occurs in two phases:

First, choose which types of decision-making tools you will use – meetings, brainstorming sessions, etc. You can read more about these below.

Second , you need to determine how you will know that the decision made is a success. To understand that, you need to formulate the success factors or criteria for your decision.

For this, think of the criteria that reflect the goals, values, and objectives for each stakeholder. When considering your criteria, you can also address it from a variety of angles. You can ask yourself the following questions:

How is it going to work?
How much will it cost?
How well will it comply with the existing system?
How consistent will it be?
How well will it fit in the existing schedule?
Or create your own to meet the criteria.

2. Determining alternatives 🤔

At the determining alternatives stage, your expert group should generate and select several alternative decisions. They need to choose from 5 to 9 solutions that best meet the planning session’s requirements. This step is important as it reduces the number of decisions and keeps the group focused on the most effective ones. You could also search for similar solutions in previous situations and consider if they suit the current issue.

3. Selecting the best alternative 💎

It’s time to choose the best alternative from the solutions selected at the determining alternatives stage. To do so, you need to compare each decision to the criteria set at the planning stage of your decision-making process. The solution that meets most criteria is the most effective one.

4. Deployment 📤

At the deployment stage, you bring your decisions into reality. This involves determining the actions and tasks that follow the final decision. It also includes the guiding requirements on how to organize the process.

Everhour is the top choice for small businesses and small to mid-size teams of 5 to 50 members, including professionals like software developers, marketers, designers, consultants, lawyers, you name it!

Seamlessly integrating with popular project management tools like Asana, Trello, and Jira, its user-friendly interface and customizable reports make it the ultimate time tracking solution for small and mid-size teams.

With dedicated support ensuring you receive timely assistance, our team is here to help you promptly and with a smile!

Group decision-making methods

Group decision-making is a subtle process that requires lots of attention and guidance. But it doesn’t have to be simply one big discussion or debate until someone gives in. To make it more effective and less argumentative, some managers prefer to establish group-decision making methods in the form of games and activities. Here are some ideas on how you could make a decision-making process more enjoyable for your employees.

💭 Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a well-known technique that aims at generating as many ideas as possible. For this, you’ll need a group of members. The optimal number is from 5 to 9 people, a group leader, and a flipchart.

The brainstorming process has two stages:

At stage 1, the group leader describes the situation in detail so that each group member has a clear vision of the problem. Group members suggest their ideas while the leader jots them down on a flip chart.
At stage 2, after the group suggests all the possible decisions, they evaluate if each decision matches their success criteria.

Sometimes group members may feel uneasy presenting their ideas. To resolve this issue, you could suggest they do brainstorming anonymously in a voting app, chat, or by email.

💁‍♀️ Nominal group thinking

Nominal group thinking resembles brainstorming, though it is better structured and encourages independent acting rather than working in a group. Participants don’t need to communicate with one another. As a result, they aren’t biased towards the opinions of dominant personalities.

Nominal group thinking procedure:

Group members write their ideas on a piece of paper and hand them to the group leader.
The group leader puts the ideas on a flipchart.
Group members, in their turn, comment on the ideas and suggest their improvements or clarifications.
After the participants have discussed the ideas, they evaluate each idea’s pros and cons and vote for the best ones. Group participants can do the voting on pieces of paper or rank the ideas by priority.
The group leader collects the votes and comes up with the results on the best solutions.

🙋‍♂️ 🙋‍♀️ Delphi technique

Delphi technique works best with a group of experts that work remotely. This way, group members don’t need to gather in one place to find the best solution to the problem. In the Delphi technique, each member is usually an expert in a particular field, so they have their own vision of handling an issue.

Delphi technique procedure:

The facilitator defines the problem and selects a panel of experts.
The experts suggest possible solutions to the problem in the form of questionnaires. These questionnaires should have a general idea about the problem.
After the experts fulfill the questionnaires, they hand them to the facilitator.
The facilitator analyzes the answers and composes a set of questions based on the given answers. The second round of questionnaires goes deeper into the problem and its solution.
The facilitator repeats the process until the experts come up with the solution.

🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♀️ Dialectical inquiry

The dialectical inquiry is another group decision-making technique that involves teamwork and concentrates on the discussion of alternatives. The method helps to uncover the hidden problems that may appear within the issue. It can also help decide whether to go with a decision or not if there’re too many advantages and disadvantages to decide upon. Think of it, like a tie-breaker.

Dialectical inquiry procedure:

The decision-making group is divided into two opposing teams
The pros team suggests their ideas, and the cons team shares their comments and reasons for them
The teams change places
Now it’s time for the cons team to express their thoughts and for the pros team to debate
The leader decides whose arguments were stronger and focuses on the appearing issues.

The technique can be modified into a devil’s advocacy practice. It means that one group member counters the participants’ ideas, suggesting opposed ideas hence revealing the potential problems.

Pros and cons of group decision-making

When considering group decision-making, we should mention that its success depends on many factors. Some of them are team manager skills, interpersonal connections between the team members, demographic diversity, and others.

Despite the diversity of many factors, experts managed to develop the general pros and cons of group decision-making.

Advantages of group decision making

Group decision-making allows its members to:

✅ Make well-informed expert decisions due to a variety of experts involved in the process ✅ Come up with unconventional ideas, especially if a group has members from diverse cultural backgrounds ✅ Reveal and prevent hidden challenges and bottlenecks that may appear later with the chosen decision ✅ Better understand the follow-on tasks and requirements when working on the issue solutions as all the members take part in their generation from the start ✅ Enhance group collaboration due to the active involvement in problem-solving through discussions and debating, and collective work.

Why is Group Collaboration Crucial

What could be more beneficial for your business than a strong team of professionals who know their work? A strong team of professionals that collaborates!

Disadvantages of group decision making

No approach or technique doesn’t have its disadvantages. Here are the main disadvantages of group decision-making:

❌ The absence of responsibility. The group makes the decision collectively, and nobody personally bears the consequences of a failure ❌ It can be ineffective and slow. This happens if a manager poorly organizes the group-decision making process ❌ Falling into group thinking. The groupthink phenomenon often appears within a group of people who strive to avoid conflicts or too much discussion. As a result, it leads to illogical and adverse outcomes ❌ Coming up with risky solutions. Sometimes a group can change from groupthink to a risky shift phenomenon. This is when a group arrives at dangerous solutions that would never occur in individual decision-making. A risky shift may happen when individuals don’t feel the personal responsibility for the decisions made and leave it to the group’s discretion.

How to make group decision-making most effective

Here, we’ve gathered some of the best tips on how to make group-decision making more effective and less tedious. Using these makes group decision-making a less stressful, more effective process:

1️⃣ Keep your groups small

The larger the group, the more biased its decision is. Your groups shouldn’t exceed five members per group. Otherwise, the participants will feel less responsibility for the decisions made and are more likely to fall into groupthink.

2️⃣ Make your groups diverse

Not just a way to please HR. People from different backgrounds can come up with unusual but viable ideas. These ideas can significantly benefit your business and lead to unexpected outcomes. This rule also works for heterogeneous groups. When men and women work together, they better imply their diverse skills and fulfill complex tasks faster.

3️⃣ Make the environment safe

The best way to make the working environment safe when everyone can freely share their opinions is to involve some anonymity in the group decision-making process. For this, collect suggested ideas and critics independently. This will help ensure your employees that you’re genuinely ready to listen to their opinions and statements.

4️⃣ Don’t entirely rely on the experts

You may know the strengths and weaknesses of each of your employees. Nevertheless, when searching for new ideas and non-obvious solutions, listen to every participant. This way, you avoid dominant opinions and groupthink biases.

Visual learners among us may want to take a look at this video covering some of the basic ground rules to making better decisions in groups:

Wrap up on group decision-making

Group decision-making is an integral part of any profitable business. And you can’t make these decisions without relying on a team of experts. Organizing an effective group decision-making process within your company requires a little work, but it’ll all be worth it with professional management skills and patience.

We, at Everhour, hope that you’ve learned how to establish a group decision-making process and successfully manage it!

All-in-one time management system for your team

Estimate tasks, set budgets, customize reports – direct in your project management tool. ✔️ Asana time tracking ✔️ Trello time tracking ✔️ Basecamp time tracking ✔️ Jira time tracking ✔️ GitHub time tracking ✔️ ClickUp time tracking ✔️ Monday time tracking

Mike Kulakov

IT entrepreneur, executive and a former engineer. Responsible for company growth as well as the team’s motivation. Big fan of playing tennis, snowboarding, traveling, reading books, and (of course) I live and breathe our product.

Group decision-making: 9 frameworks for success

Start collaborating with Mural today

Get frameworks to help your team improve group decision-making that leads to better results, increased productivity, and better alignment.

Problem-solving as part of a group is something most people tend to either love or hate.

When done well, group decision-making can help teams dig deeper into challenges, unearth creative solutions, and reach a consensus that makes everyone happy.

But, as with any team activity, reaching a decision as a group can come with its own set of challenges. It can be time-consuming for a group to agree on a decision. Some members of the group may even feel like they’re doing an unequal portion of the work. And of course, there’s always the ever-present threat of groupthink .

If it’s working well though, few will dispute how effective group decision-making can be. So let’s quickly take this activity apart, then explore some ways you can make sure of its success.

What is group decision-making?

Group decision-making is when several people (typically three or more) get together to discuss a problem, come up with and explore different possible solutions, and eventually reach some sort of alignment on what the next steps should be.

The primary idea behind group decision-making is that, by exposing a problem to a variety of viewpoints and experiences to a group of people, you'll come up with more thoughtful and innovative ideas .

In fact, research backs this up. Studies have consistently shown that the greater the diversity within groups responsible for making decisions, the better these decisions are for their company’s financial performance.

Why is decision-making as a group important?

The short answer is that group-decision making will typically give you better results than you’d be able to produce on your own, while generating greater consensus. But let’s break down the benefits of the group decision-making process even more:

It leverages collective knowledge. No one can be an expert in everything, but put a few people in the same room together and your cumulative knowledge will add up. This diversity of viewpoints, experience, and expertise can help you uncover new insights and lead to better decisions and more creative ideas.
It takes advantage of dissent. The more people who are involved, the harder you’ll have to work for consensus — and that can be a good thing. Through the act of addressing every person’s objections, you’ll uncover possible weaknesses in your decision-making, reduce the likelihood of errors, and identify potential biases, all of which will produce better outcomes.
It's more comprehensive. Especially regarding complex or challenging problems, it'll pay to have as many people thinking it through as possible. This will allow you to break it apart and analyze different aspects of it‌, helping you to identify risks and opportunities that you may have otherwise missed.
It builds relationships. The opportunity to work together and solve a problem can be a great way to forge closer relationships between group members. They’ll have to listen to each other’s opinions, rely on each other’s expertise, and trust each other in order to be productive and accomplish anything. And that kind of teamwork will bring them closer. ‍
It increases buy-in. Similar to the above, by having the opportunity to directly work on a problem and help the larger team come up with a solution, those involved will be more likely to support the outcome . They aren’t just accepting a decision made from high up. Instead, they’re contributing their own opinions and concerns. This will help reduce any possible resistance and help make implementation a success.

7 group decision-making frameworks to unlock team productivity

Getting a group together to make a decision can be as simple as sitting down in the same room. But it can also help to have some group decision-making techniques to get everyone comfortable and the ideas flowing. Here are a few of our favorites.

Explore these frameworks and choose the one that best fits the type of decision your team needs to make.

1. Brainstorming ideas and solutions

Brainstorming sessions are something that everyone has probably done at least once — and for good reason. They’re an easy and accessible way to start coming up with ideas. But not all brainstorming sessions are equal. There’s a big difference between simply asking people to come up with ideas and actually taking the time to provide that everyone is comfortable sharing their various perspectives, experiences, and ideas.

Pro-tip: Group leaders can create some brainstorming ground rules with the team to set expectations and agree on the group dynamics for the brainstorming session.

To help shortcut your way to an effective session, our brainstorming template breaks down the process into a series of effective steps, each designed to foster productivity and inclusivity. For instance, after an initial step that sets expectations for the session, you’ll move into a timed “solo brainstorm” activity so that people can freely come up with their own ideas.

After the solo brainstorm, you’ll move back together into a more traditional group setting before putting the best ideas to a vote to decide on the best solution. Even for those who may not like group decision-making activities, this template can help make reaching a collective decision with your team pain-free.

2. SWOT analysis

A SWOT analysis is a classic technique for breaking apart a product or project according to its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. In doing so, the SWOT approach can help make even the most unapproachable problems much more accessible. It can also create a path forward for setting clear and actionable objectives.

To begin, clearly define what you are analyzing. Write it out in a sentence or two to make sure there’s alignment. Then go through each quadrant and brainstorm different ideas. Using our SWOT analysis template , you can either do this in real-time with your decision-makers or send out a link for them to do asynchronously — or both. You can also keep the board running over the length of your project so that members can continuously add to it and assess the project as it evolves.

Pro-tip: While we’re strong advocates of leveraging teamwork to solve problems , a SWOT analysis is a good activity for individual decision-making too.

3. Decision tree

Sometimes all you need is a good visual to help you arrive at the best possible decision. Our decision tree template can help you do just that by making it easy to visualize how all your various choices will play out, including the decisions you’ll likely have to make afterwards and their implications. This will help improve your understanding of the issue at hand, make it easier to manage risks, and save time.

Like with your SWOT analysis, you should start by first clearly defining the decision(s) that you have to make with your stakeholders. Ensuring full alignment at the outset is key to success. Once you’ve done this, you can start adding in all the possible choices you could make.

With the template, you can easily draw lines or arrows between the initial decision and these choices so that your team can see their relationship. From there, you can start coming up with how these various choices proceed, brainstorming their outcomes and consequences. The result will give you your best path to success and help you explore alternative solutions.

4. Affinity Diagram

Ever been overwhelmed with the amount of data you’ve collected on a project — so much so you don’t even know where to start? Then the affinity clustering template is made for you.

Affinity diagrams are a design thinking method based around patterns. By sorting items based on similarities, you can uncover commonalities and reveal patterns you may not have been able to see otherwise. And that can make your decision-making process a whole lot easier.

The process is fairly simple. Just add all your relevant data to the template. Typically, this will take the form of sticky notes. Then gather your team members and start grouping each data point into different clusters, organized by theme. Eventually, you should start to see certain patterns emerge in your groupings. Use that information to make your next decision.

5. Importance / Difficulty Matrix

Sometimes, you may have too many different projects or problems to keep track of at once. Or maybe your team just can’t agree on what needs to be prioritized.

This is where the importance/difficulty matrix template comes in.

The Importance/Difficulty Matrix template by Mural

By providing you with a simple chart for plotting items by relative importance and difficulty, you can quickly (and objectively) rank items to get aligned on what your team should work on next.

This matrix is ideal for batches of 10 to 15 different projects. So if you have more than that, you may need to have a larger discussion with your team about narrowing them down. Once you’ve done that, all you have to do is start mapping each project according to its importance (high vs. low impact) and difficulty (again, high vs. low). Try to avoid just dragging and dropping each item, though. Make sure you discuss and debate all of them to make sure every person’s voice is heard. That way, you’ll be able to accurately place each project on the matrix.

6. Buy A Feature

In the real world, projects, features, problems, and really anything you’d like to prioritize all take resources to accomplish. And those resources are limited. If you choose to focus on one over another, then you’ll have less time, money, or energy to dedicate to the rest.

This is exactly what the buy-a-feature template allows you to simulate. In doing so, it can help reveal what's really most important to your team.

The way it works is by gamifying the experience of choosing what to prioritize. As the facilitator, you should begin by defining your problem or project, then building out a list of features, ideas, solutions, or anything else that your team will have to choose. With this in hand, you assign each one a monetary value based on their difficulty, and give each member or stakeholder a limited amount of money to spend. Then the fun begins. As they pick what they want to spend their money on, their true choices should quickly reveal itself. In the end, you should be able to see what they value most.

7. Prioritization Matrix

This framework builds and expands on the importance/difficulty matrix described above. But, instead of just measuring ideas and projects against their difficulty and importance, it gives participants the freedom to choose what criteria they want to use.

For instance, you could consider risk vs. benefits, or timeline vs. budget. Alternatively, you could use this prioritization template to place the same project across multiple 2x2 grids, helping you visualize it across several criteria at once.

As usual, define your problem or opportunity. Then, instead of immediately moving to assessment, take some time to identify which criteria your team wants to use to evaluate your options. Once this is done, take some potential options that could address this problem and start measuring them against the criteria you’ve chosen. The result should be a comprehensive view into how multiple options will affect your problem, allowing you to make an informed final decision.

8. The stepladder technique

The stepladder technique is a brainstorming and decision-making method that brings in more team members to provide input as the exercise goes on. Designed to encourage participation from all members of a group, the stepladder technique is a natural hedge against the impacts of conformity and groupthink in working groups.

You begin by having a group of two team members discussing solutions to a problem. Then, you add one person at a time until everyone has a chance to share their thoughts. Then, the group decides on a solution.

9. Pros and cons list

Although it seems simple, a quick pros and cons list can help your team quickly identify the main advantages and disadvantages of a decision before holding a vote. It ensures that everyone's input is considered, and it can lead to better choices because you've carefully thought about the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Begin by identifying the decision that needs to be made and each key option to choose from. Next, brainstorm with your team and create a list of advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) for each decision. After listing the pros and cons, talk about each one. This is where the group can have a conversation about the reasons why an idea might be a good choice and the reasons why it might not be. This discussion helps everyone understand the options better. After discussing and considering all the pros and cons, you can now make a well-informed decision.

Mural also has a straightforward pros and cons list template that makes it easy for your team to quickly discuss and make a decision.

4 Tips to take your group decision-making to the next level

The above frameworks will all help level up your group decision-making capabilities, but it doesn’t have to end there. Here are a few more tips you can employ to make sure you’re getting the most out of your next group session:

Anonymous voting: It can be intimidating for many people to voice their opinions in group settings, especially if they’re not used to it. Anonymous voting is an easy way to get people to weigh in with their true feelings while feeling safe in doing so.
Asynchronous work: In this day and age, there’s no reason you have to have everyone in the same room (or video call) at the same time. One of the best advantages of online whiteboards like Mural is that they work just as well long before and long after a group meeting, letting people do their work ahead and continue contributing as they come up with new ideas — all on their own schedule.
Involve only important stakeholders: Involving absolutely everyone you can think of may be democratic, but it’s probably not very efficient. Instead, take some time before your group decision-making session to evaluate which stakeholders have the largest impact on the project or problem. Those are the voices you’ll want to hear from. ‍
Assign a devil’s advocate: Groupthink is one of the greatest enemies of group decision-making. But by simply giving someone the job of challenging group assumptions, pointing out opposing sides, and making sure the status quo must always defend itself in group discussions, you can help make sure every decision is made on solid ground.

Productive teams are better at decision-making

Knowing how to come together as a group , fairly evaluate all of your options, and arrive at an informed consensus decision is an essential skill for every team. But while practice makes perfect, there are also plenty of valuable tools and strategies you can use to help get you there as well. With our comprehensive library of templates and decision-making methods, Mural is designed to help your team make better decisions — and maybe even have some fun while doing so.

Sign up with Mural and get started with templates to improve your group decision-making today.

Better team collaboration: Best practices, guides, & more

What is Cross-Functional Collaboration? - Benefits & Tips

How to create a stakeholder map [templates & examples]

How to use reverse brainstorming with your team

What is a flowchart? Examples, tips, and templates

Time blocking best practices: How to boost your productivity

Decision-Making in Groups

First Online: 11 May 2021

Cite this chapter

Radu Atanasiu ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8850-9538 2

Part of the book series: Management for Professionals ((MANAGPROF))

1202 Accesses

1 Citations

It is said that two heads are better than one, meaning that a group thinks better and makes wiser decisions than each member taken individually. For instance, the wisdom of the crowd phenomenon describes how large crowds can estimate something (the weight of an ox, in the most famous example) astonishingly close to reality, as revealed by averaging all individual responses. Boards and juries are examples of groups especially assembled for making decisions. Many organizations have understood the power of collective decisions. Group decisions have the capacity to generate commitment, motivation, and individual responsibility. However, in many companies, group decisions are difficult to make and sometimes even harder to implement. Why might that be? It is perhaps because in business, two heads are better than one only if there is a well-established group decision-making system in place. This chapter emphasizes the importance of clear assignment of roles and of delegating, discusses pitfalls in group decision-making, and ends by offering tools for collective decisions when the team works remotely.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Blenko, M., Mankins, M. C., & Rogers, P. (2010). Decide and deliver: Five steps to breakthrough performance in your organization . Harvard Business Review Press.

Google Scholar

Chambers, H. (2004). My way or the highway: the micromanagement survival guide (1st ed.). Berrett-Koehler.

De Smet, A., Lackey, G., & Weiss, L. M. (2017). Untangling your organization's decision making. McKinsey Quarterly , 2017 (3), 68–80.

Rogers, P., & Blenko, M. (2006). Who has the d? How clear decision roles enhance organizational performance. Harvard Business Review , 84 (1), 52–61.

Voss, C., & Raz, T. (2016). Never split the difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it (1st ed.). Harper Business.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making . University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wilkins, M. M. (2014). Signs that you’re a micromanager. Harvard Business Review , 84 (1). Retrieved from https://hbr.org .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Bucharest International School of Management, Bucharest, Romania

Radu Atanasiu

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radu Atanasiu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Atanasiu, R. (2021). Decision-Making in Groups. In: Critical Thinking for Managers. Management for Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73600-2_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73600-2_8

Published : 11 May 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-73599-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-73600-2

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Learning objectives.

Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.
Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.

Group Problem Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.

Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group problem solving can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.

Muness Castle – Problem Solving – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Once a solution has been reached and the group has the “green light” to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making sure to consider possible consequences and address them as needed.

Jocko Benoit – Prodigal Light – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

“Getting Competent”

Problem Solving and Group Presentations

Giving a group presentation requires that individual group members and the group as a whole solve many problems and make many decisions. Although having more people involved in a presentation increases logistical difficulties and has the potential to create more conflict, a well-prepared and well-delivered group presentation can be more engaging and effective than a typical presentation. The main problems facing a group giving a presentation are (1) dividing responsibilities, (2) coordinating schedules and time management, and (3) working out the logistics of the presentation delivery.

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn’t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group’s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings (Stanton, 2009).

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people’s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members’ commitment.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn’t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space (Stanton, 2012). In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his or her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they aren’t fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you’re going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don’t want presenters huddled in a corner until it’s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.

Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?
Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they’ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should only go on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
Do the actual brainstorming session. This session shouldn’t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn’t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract and can’t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to not throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

Silently and individually list ideas.
Create a master list of ideas.
Clarify ideas as needed.
Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn’t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they’ve finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus one.

Becky McCray – Voting – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn’t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn’t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that’s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

Table 14.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques

Decision-Making Technique	Pros	Cons
Majority rule
Minority rule by expert
Minority rule by authority
Consensus rule

“Getting Critical”

Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts (de Bono, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

White hat. Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
Red hat. Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
Black hat. Negative—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
Yellow hat. Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
Green hat. Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
Blue hat. Philosophical—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” in order to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

This decision-making method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision Making

A group’s situational context affects decision making. One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members can’t know what other group members are thinking, whether or not they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. So the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The urgency of a decision can have a major influence on the decision-making process. As a situation becomes more urgent, it requires more specific decision-making methods and types of communication.

Judith E. Bell – Urgent – CC BY-SA 2.0.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious (Spranger, 1928).

The economic decision maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
The aesthetic decision maker makes decisions based on form and harmony, desiring a solution that is elegant and in sync with the surroundings.
The theoretical decision maker wants to discover the truth through rationality.
The social decision maker emphasizes the personal impact of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
The political decision maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or property as divided into groups that have different value.
The religious decision maker seeks to identify with a larger purpose, works to unify others under that goal, and commits to a viewpoint, often denying one side and being dedicated to the other.

In the United States, economic, political, and theoretical decision making tend to be more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on competition and efficiency. But situational context, as we discussed before, can also influence our decision making.

Personality affects decision making. For example, “economic” decision makers decide based on what is practical and useful.

One Way Stock – Tough Decisions Ahead – CC BY-ND 2.0.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

Dominant versus submissive. Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more direct eye contact, seek leadership positions, and take control over decision-making processes. More submissive members are reserved, contribute to the group only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and leave their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
Friendly versus unfriendly. Group members on the friendly side of the continuum find a balance between talking and listening, don’t try to win at the expense of other group members, are flexible but not weak, and value democratic decision making. Unfriendly group members are disagreeable, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct it in their own interest rather than in the interest of the group.
Instrumental versus emotional. Instrumental group members are emotionally neutral, objective, analytical, task-oriented, and committed followers, which leads them to work hard and contribute to the group’s decision making as long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional group members are creative, playful, independent, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist group norms or decision-making structures, and switch often from relational to task focus.

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone doesn’t like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters. Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are more similar than different in terms of race and age. This ease of communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice some creativity. As we learned earlier, groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision making and creativity of output.

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their midsixties to mideighties, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to midsixties, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to midforties, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just starting to enter into the workforce and have been greatly affected by the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing Chapter 8 “Culture and Communication” will give you useful knowledge to help you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every problem also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.

The group problem-solving process has five steps:

Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.

Several factors influence the decision-making process:

Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
Scenario 1. Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
Scenario 1: Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
Scenario 2: Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
Scenario 3: Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
Scenario 4: Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Adams, K., and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 220–21.

Allen, B. J., Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity , 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5.

Bormann, E. G., and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication , 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13.

Clarke, G., “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.

Cragan, J. F., and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach , 3rd ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1991), 77–78.

de Bono, E., Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985).

Delbecq, A. L., and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92.

Haslett, B. B., and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research , ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133.

Napier, R. W., and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292.

Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959).

Spranger, E., Types of Men (New York: Steckert, 1928).

Stanton, C., “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills , November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012, http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Thomas, D. C., “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

BUS403: Negotiations and Conflict Management (2016.A.01)

Group decision-making.

This section will help you distinguish between decision-making and problem-solving. The author describes five methods for group decision-making and defines autocratic, democratic, and participative decision-making styles.

Methods of Reaching Decisions

Research does indicate that groups generate more ideas and make more accurate decisions on matters for which a known preferred solution exists, but they also operate more slowly than individuals. Under time pressure and other constraints, some group leaders exercise their power to make a decision unilaterally - alone - because they're willing to sacrifice a degree of accuracy for the sake of speed. Sometimes this behavior turns out to be wise; sometimes it doesn't. Assuming that a group determines that it must reach a decision together on some matter, rather than deferring to the will of a single person, it can proceed according to several methods. Parker and Hoffman, place decision-making procedures in several categories. Here is a synthesis of their views of how decision-making can take place:

"A plop". A group may conduct a discussion in which members express views and identify alternatives but then reach no decision and take no action. When people go their own ways after such a " plop ," things sometimes take care of themselves, and the lack of a decision causes no difficulties. On the other hand, if a group ignores or postpones a decision which really needs attention, its members may confront tougher decisions later - some of which may deal with problems brought about by not addressing a topic when it was at an early stage.
Delegation to an expert. A group may not be ready to make a decision at a given time, either because it lacks sufficient information or is experiencing unresolved conflict among members with differing views. In such a situation, the group may not want to simply drop the matter and move on. Instead, it may turn to one of its members who everyone feels has the expertise to choose wisely among the alternatives that the group is considering. The group can either ask the expert to come back later with a final proposal or simply allow the person to make the decision alone after having gathered whatever further information he or she feels is necessary.
Averaging. Group members may shift their individual stances regarding a question by "splitting the difference" to reach a "middle ground". This technique tends to work most easily if numbers are involved. For instance, a group trying to decide how much money to spend on a gift for a departing member might ask everyone for a preferred amount and agree to spend whatever is computed by averaging those amounts.

Consensus. In consensus decision-making, group members reach a resolution which all of the members can support as being acceptable as a means of accomplishing some mutual goal even though it may not be the preferred choice for everyone. In common use, "consensus" can range in meaning from unanimity to a simple majority vote. In public policy facilitation and multilateral international negotiations, however, the term refers to a general agreement reached after discussions and consultations, usually without voting". Consensus should not be confused with unanimity , which means only that no one has explicitly stated objections to a proposal or decision. Although unanimity can certainly convey an accurate perspective of a group's views at times, groupthink also often leads to unanimous decisions. Therefore, it's probably wise to be cautious when a group of diverse people seems to have formed a totally unified bloc with respect to choices among controversial alternatives. When a consensus decision is reached through full interchange of views and is then adopted in good faith by all parties to a discussion, it can energize and motivate a group. Besides avoiding the win/lose elements intrinsic to voting, it converts each member's investment in a decision into a stake in preserving and promoting the decision after it has been agreed upon.

Best methods for making group decisions
Community development
Leadership development

Key concept

As groups meet to make decisions on important issues, members should take time to decide who decides, and how to decide. Using decision-making methods that involve more people in more ways increases public participation.

What's the best decision-making method?

Tip: Decide who decides—and how

A small team deciding on an item by a show of raised hands.

Sometimes, who decides in a group is pre-determined by a statute or law. However, there may be opportunities to expand the involvement of who decides.

By engaging the public or increasing the level of participation in decision-making, groups can make more informed decisions that address public concerns. As a group, it is important to have a conversation about who will make the decisions, and how.

Decision-making methods

To help your group select a decision-making method, you might lead a discussion using questions such as:

To what extent do the group members feel the need to be understood and influential in the decisions that are made?
To what extent are members committed to the decision and responsible for its implementation?
To what extent are members satisfied with their own participation and the group atmosphere?

There are a variety of options when deciding how to decide. Below are four types of options with a summary of the strengths, weaknesses and consequences of each.

1. Decision by authority

This method can be described as "one person decides." This might mean assigning the decision to the most expert person or to a person who decides after listening to the group discuss the problem. Often, the person making the decision is a positional leader.

This method is useful when the group lacks knowledge or skills and has little time to make a decision. It works well when decisions are "routine" or when commitment to implementation is not a concern.

This method probably won't work well with more complex decisions because it doesn't use all available help or support from group members. As a result, the group might not support the final decision and group resentment may develop.

2. Minority control (small group decides)

This method uses the skills and resources of a small number of group members. Usually, the small group is made up of experts on the issue or a delegated subgroup that has the necessary information to make a decision.

This method is useful if the whole group cannot meet, if only a few members have information on or interest in the decision, or for routine types of decisions. This decision-making method may be appropriate when overall commitment to the decision is not necessary.

This method does not use the resources of most of the group and doesn't build group support for the decision. Nor does it yield the benefits of group interaction.

3. Majority control (voting)

Often mandated by rules or bylaws, voting allows all members to vote for or against an issue. Groups using this method typically adopt the idea that wins a majority of votes.

This may seem like the fairest method, and it is seen as a legitimate method in a democracy. It is effective when there is no time to build consensus. This is a good method to use when members of the group are equally informed.

Someone wins and someone loses in voting. This can result in a disgruntled minority in a group or can cause opposing factions to mobilize. Voting also cuts out the option of finding a compromise solution.

4. Consensus (all decide)

Consensus strives for the full empowerment and involvement of all group members when making a decision. Consensus is generally understood to mean that everyone involved has had a chance to participate, understand the decision, and is prepared to support it.

Consensus can produce a high-quality decision that has strong commitment to implementation. The future ability of the group to solve problems is enhanced. Consensus is useful for serious, important, complex decisions that affect a lot of people.

This method takes a great deal of time and energy. Consensus is hard to achieve in a large group and requires a rich exchange of ideas and information.

Bryson, J.M. & Carroll, A.R. (2007). Public participation fieldbook . St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Author: Tobias Spanier, Extension educator, leadership and civic engagement

How can Extension help

Extension leadership and civic engagement (LCE) educators work across the state of Minnesota. They provide educational programs and consultations that help communities solve problems and make decisions.

Contact an educator near you or program leader Holli Arp .

Reviewed in 2023

Report Web Disability-Related Issue |
Privacy Statement |
Staff intranet

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
R Soc Open Sci
v.4(8); 2017 Aug

Making better decisions in groups

1 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, UK

2 Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark

Chris D. Frith

3 Institute of Philosophy, University of London, London WC1E 7HU, UK

Associated Data

This article has no supporting data.

We review the literature to identify common problems of decision-making in individuals and groups. We are guided by a Bayesian framework to explain the interplay between past experience and new evidence, and the problem of exploring the space of hypotheses about all the possible states that the world could be in and all the possible actions that one could take. There are strong biases, hidden from awareness, that enter into these psychological processes. While biases increase the efficiency of information processing, they often do not lead to the most appropriate action. We highlight the advantages of group decision-making in overcoming biases and searching the hypothesis space for good models of the world and good solutions to problems. Diversity of group members can facilitate these achievements, but diverse groups also face their own problems. We discuss means of managing these pitfalls and make some recommendations on how to make better group decisions.

1. Why is it hard to make decisions?

Most decisions have to be made in the face of uncertainty and in the absence of immediate feedback. Making decisions in groups can reduce uncertainty, and this is one of the reasons why it is observed frequently throughout the animal kingdom [ 1 , 2 ]. For example, a shoal of fish can follow a light-level gradient that is too weak a signal for an individual fish to follow [ 3 ]. Humans can develop better models of how the world works by means of discussion [ 4 , 5 ]. However, decision-making in groups is complex and can go wrong [ 6 , 7 ]. The purpose of this paper is to review the scientific literature in order to identify pitfalls that decision-makers—both individuals and those making decisions in groups—should be aware of and to make recommendations that can help groups make better decisions.

Our review will mostly be concerned with small groups who agree on the problem to be solved, such as panels and committees, although many of the phenomena that we consider can also be observed in large groups. We adopt a Bayesian framework which has been shown to capture many aspects of intuitive decision-making [ 8 – 10 ]. The term intuitive is important; it reminds us that we are not conscious of most of our cognitive processes, which happen automatically and are simply too fast to reach awareness. We will often refer to the Bayesian distinction between past experience (prior) and new evidence (likelihood). We will also refer to the need to explore the hypothesis space from which we select an action. In doing so, our main aim is to understand how decisions can go wrong. Details of the Bayesian approach can be found in appendix A.

2. Introducing some basic concepts

2.1. forming beliefs in an uncertain world, 2.1.1. weighting past experience and new evidence.

It is important to strike the right balance between, on one hand, past experience and perceived wisdom and, on the other hand, new evidence. In the middle of the last century, doctors sent large numbers of children to hospital to have their tonsils and adenoids removed. Such referrals were made even though, in 1938, the Schools Epidemic Committee of the Medical Research Council concluded: ‘It is a little difficult to believe that among the mass of tonsillectomies performed to-day all subjects for operation are selected with true discrimination and one cannot avoid the conclusion that there is a tendency for the operation to be performed as a routine prophylactic ritual for no particular reason and with no particular result’ [ 11 ]. In a more recent empirical study, it was found that, in 1981, 17% of doctors used coronary angiography inappropriately; they did not keep up with the evidence and stuck with apparently tried and trusted experience [ 12 , 13 ].

2.1.2. Assessing the reliability of our sources

Even when we make decisions on our own, information often comes from other people. To use this information appropriately, we need an estimate of the reliability , known as precision in the Bayesian framework, of our sources. The confidence with which others transmit information can be a useful marker, but it can also be misleading, even when there is no intention to deceive. These dangers are present even when evaluating our own judgements. In many situations, the confidence we feel might not be a good guide. For example, a victim of a crime may sincerely believe that they have a good memory for the face of the criminal, but select an innocent person in an identity parade [ 14 ].

2.2. Finding the best solution

2.2.1. sampling the hypothesis space.

We can think of the task of choosing the best action as one of finding the highest point in a hilly landscape [ 15 ] ( figure 1 a ). The landscape represents a probability distribution over the goodness of possible actions where the highest probability indicates the best action. But how can we find this peak? A calculation of the entire distribution is often computationally intractable, and yet there are many circumstances in which the brain achieves near-optimal solutions [ 16 , 17 ]. One way this might be achieved is by sampling the probability distribution [ 15 ]. By visiting the landscape at different points, we can form a rough map and thus make a better choice ( figure 1 b ). For example, we may search our memory for situations similar to the current one [ 18 , 19 ] or ask others for advice [ 20 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g1.jpg

Exploring the landscape of possible actions. ( a ) The plot shows the probability distribution over the goodness of possible actions. The peak indicates the best action. ( b ) A rough estimate of the probability distribution can be made by drawing samples. ( c ) If the sampling is biased, then the estimate of the probability distribution may not reflect the true one. To create the sample-based distributions, we drew samples from the true probability distribution ( N = 14) in a uniform manner ( b ) or from a sub-part ( c ), and then applied a smooth function. We sampled the height of the true probability distribution, akin to remembering how good an action was or asking a friend for their advice about which action to take.

Sampling works well in domains such as perception and motor control where we can draw on a rich database built through years of experience [ 21 , 22 ]. Its disadvantage is, however, revealed by the errors that people make in unfamiliar abstract settings; we should engage in unbiased sampling, but, instead, we fall prey to old habits [ 23 ]. Another risk of sampling is that the explorer of the landscape risks getting stuck on a local peak and thus never discovers that there is a higher peak ( figure 1 c ). Having found such an apparently satisfying solution, people tend to devote their cognitive resources to justifying it, rather than looking for a better one [ 24 ].

2.2.2. Exploitation and exploration

When we think we know enough, or are running out of time, we exploit our current knowledge to choose the action that we think will achieve the best outcome. We would normally prefer an outcome of high value, but we also take account of the probability that an outcome will be realized at all [ 25 ]. However, as shown by the success of lotteries [ 26 ], estimating the expected value of an action is subject to strong biases. There are many cases where we do not have sufficient knowledge to make a good decision. In such cases, we should explore rather than exploit and seek more information before making up our minds [ 27 , 28 ]. Of course, if we have an exaggerated opinion of the adequacy of our current knowledge, then we may fail to seek more information. We have already mentioned the observation that some doctors used coronary angiography inappropriately [ 12 , 13 ]. If they had collected exercise data they would have found that angiography was unnecessary.

2.3. Hidden biases

In the interest of processing information efficiently, humans employ shortcuts, many of which evolved by leading to life-saving actions in dire situations [ 29 ]. For example, rapidly recognizing an enemy, or a predator, leads to the good decision to take evasive action. However, in modern life, these biases, left over from evolution, can cause poor decisions; for example, rejecting a candidate because they are from an ‘unfamiliar’ group (e.g. because of ethnicity or gender) and trigger a threat response [ 30 ]. As modern-day humans, we are surprised at these ‘outdated’ biases when they are pointed out and strive to be free of them [ 31 ]. There are other kinds of biases too, which depend on individual experience. For example, one can imagine a culturally dependent bias to stand on the left side of escalators (e.g. Tokyo). While a useful instinct when in the context in which the bias was learnt, the bias can be offensive when in a new context where it is customary to stand on the right (e.g. Osaka or London).

3. When individual decisions go wrong

We will now consider some of the ways in which individual decisions can go wrong, and then discuss how groups can, sometimes, overcome these shortcomings. We will mainly consider decisions where we are aware of the problem and the answer that we reached but where we need not be aware of how we got there—even when we do think we know, we might be far off the truth [ 32 ]. This mode of decision-making is the most typical of the workings of small groups.

3.1. Forming wrong beliefs

3.1.1. too much or too little faith in past experience.

A common source of bad decisions is inappropriate prior beliefs. If we have a strong prior belief in a hypothesis, then we need huge amounts of conflicting evidence to change our mind. For example, the surgeons performing tonsillectomies in the 1940s had the strong belief that this operation would be of benefit for all and were not swayed by the report from the Medical Research Council [ 11 ]. In physics, Einstein's firm belief that the universe was static led him to add an unnecessary parameter (the cosmological constant: Λ) when he applied his theory of general relativity to the universe [ 33 ]. In geology, the theory of continental drift was rejected for 40 years because of ‘prior theoretical commitments' to permanence theory [ 34 ]. Conversely, if we have a weak prior belief in a hypothesis, then we need huge amounts of supporting observations to believe it. For example, most scientists do not believe in extra-sensory perception (e.g. telepathy) [ 35 ]. As a result, they demand much stronger evidence for the existence of extra-sensory perception than for more widely accepted hypotheses [ 36 ]. While perhaps sensible in the case of extra-sensory perception, such weak prior beliefs have hindered scientific advances in the past.

3.1.2. Misinterpreting new evidence

It is not the case that faith in prior beliefs is a bad thing. Prior beliefs reflect past experiences with the world, either on an evolutionary or an individual time scale, and we greatly benefit from these. It is also not the case that new evidence should be distrusted on principle, because it is imperative that we adapt to new situations. However, if we are to update our beliefs about the world appropriately, we need to be able to interpret the new evidence correctly. Here is an example from the history of science. When Galileo first viewed Saturn through a telescope in 1610, he did not have a good model to explain what he saw. At one point, he described the planet as having ears ( figure 2 ). It was not until 1655 that Huygens realized that these ‘ears’ were the rings that surround Saturn [ 37 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g2.jpg

Misinterpreting new evidence. ( a ) Galileo was mystified by the appearance of Saturn, which changed over time and appeared to have ears or arms. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, XII, Correspondence 1614–1619, Letter 1223. ( b ) Huygens recognized how these changing appearances could be explained by a ring. Systema Saturnium (1659), Oeuvres Completes de Christiaan Huygens , XV: 312.

3.1.3. Erroneous evaluation of rare events

When updating our beliefs about the world, whether consciously or unconsciously, we seem to be especially bad at dealing with rare events; we overestimate their occurrence when our beliefs about the world are based on information obtained from others, but underestimate them when they are built from our own experience [ 38 , 39 ]. For example, after reading the leaflet for a prescribed medicine, we might overestimate the probability that a physical symptom is due to an adverse side effect. By contrast, a doctor with years of experience prescribing the medicine might underestimate that very same probability. In this example, the patient overweights the new evidence, whereas the doctor overweights their past experience.

3.1.4. Too much or too little faith in one's own abilities

Most people, whether they like it or not, are bad at gauging the accuracy of their beliefs [ 40 ]. In a typical psychological study, people would be asked to indicate their confidence in different judgements (e.g. that a cloud of dots is moving to the left and not to the right) or propositions (e.g. that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil) as a probability of being correct [ 41 ]. The researcher would then quantify two aspects of the relationship between people's confidence and beliefs [ 42 ]. The first one is resolution which characterizes the extent to which people's low and high confidence can discriminate between their incorrect and correct beliefs. The second aspect is calibration which characterizes the extent to which their stated probability of being correct reflects their objective probability of being correct; for example, when they say that there is a 70% chance that their belief is correct, then they are also correct 70% of the time. Calibration in particular is subject to biases. People are often overconfident for hard problems, but paradoxically, they tend to be underconfident for easy ones—a phenomenon known as the hard - easy effect [ 43 – 45 ]. There are, however, significant individual differences in the degree to which people display under- or over-confidence [ 46 ].

3.2. Simple solutions to complex problems and their unforeseen consequences

3.2.1. the streisand effect.

Many problems require a depth of thinking that is beyond our cognitive powers. Even a simple game like tic-tac-toe can unfold in thousands of different ways. When faced with problems of high complexity, we tend to resort to heuristic strategies—that is, simple algorithms, or rules of thumb, for selecting an action [ 47 ]. Heuristic strategies can save us time and cognitive effort [ 48 ], but they might also have unintended consequences. One such consequence has become known as the Streisand effect [ 49 ]. In 2003, Barbra Streisand filed a lawsuit to prevent the online posting of a photo of her home. At first sight, this seems to be the appropriate way to prevent unwanted material being made public. We believe that if unwanted behaviour is punished then it will cease. Prior to the lawsuit, only six people had downloaded the photo, two of them being Streisand's lawyers. After the attention created by the lawsuit, about 400 000 people visited the website [ 50 ].

3.2.2. Learning without a model of the world

One heuristic solution to the complexity problem is to use model-free strategies instead of model-based strategies [ 51 ], which are slow to develop [ 52 ] and cognitively taxing [ 53 ]. Model-free strategies proceed by storing the outcomes of past actions and then acting upon these values in a habitual manner. For example, a model-free player of tic-tac-toe might always seek to occupy the centre of the grid, because such behaviour has been rewarded in the past. By contrast, model-based strategies proceed by building and updating a model of the world; a model-based player of tic-tac-toe would not rely on old habits, but draw on an internal model of their opponent, imagining and assessing their future moves. As should be apparent, for model-free strategies to work well, substantial experience in an unchanging world is needed [ 51 ]. This requirement is, however, rarely satisfied. Even the state of the decision-maker may change, such that the future state to which the decision is relevant is not the same as the state when the decision had to be made. As we all know, if we shop when we are hungry, we are likely to make decisions that our future satiated self would disapprove of [ 54 ].

3.2.3. Too few hypotheses

Another heuristic solution to the complexity problem is to consider only a subset of hypotheses about the world and possible actions. This strategy is particularly likely to be applied to problems where our past experience is not rich enough to guide sampling of the full space of hypotheses in an adequate manner [ 15 ]. Reduction of this space may, however, lead to bad decisions when too few alternatives are taken into account [ 55 ]. For example, the political scientist Philip Tetlock divided political pundits into foxes , who consider multiple hypotheses, and hedgehogs , who consider much fewer; in general, the foxes are more accurate in their predictions, but the media prefer to hear from the hedgehogs [ 56 ].

3.2.4. Inertia and optimism bias

The last solution to the complexity problem that we will consider is sampling from memory: instead of using forward planning, imagining and evaluating the future consequences of an action, we may decide on an action by recalling what we did the last time that we were in a similar situation [ 18 , 19 ]. This strategy can explain the observation that people tend to repeat past choices regardless of the current evidence—a bias known as decision inertia [ 57 ]. When we do engage in forward planning, we may still use sampling from memory to inform some of the computations, such as estimating the expected value of an action. This strategy may, however, lead to distorted estimates if the sampling is biased. For example, it has been shown that our belief about the probability of an action outcome depends on how desirable we find that outcome—a phenomenon known as optimism bias [ 58 ]. This bias may come about if, when building expectations from memory, we sample outcomes we like, but ignore outcomes we do not like. As a result, we may underestimate the probability of undesirable outcomes, such as illness resulting from smoking, and overestimate the probability of desirable outcomes, such as winning the lottery or our new restaurant being a hit. Interestingly, when gathering new information, we seem to prefer sources which give us good news, which only biases our memory further [ 59 ].

4. The advantages of decision-making in groups

Many of the problems of individual decision-making can be mitigated if individuals join with others to make decisions in a group. We will consider group scenarios where people work together or independently. We will not discuss the nature and function of group leaders as this is a field in its own right [ 60 – 62 ]. However, in the Recommendations section, we will mention some situations in which a group chair or leader can help mitigate the problems specific to group decision-making.

4.1. Forming better beliefs

4.1.1. benefits of pooling information.

As a statistical rule of thumb, pooling information across independent individuals leads to more reliable information [ 63 , 64 ]. For example, pooling unbiased but noisy numerical estimates causes uncorrelated errors to cancel out and therefore increases the precision of the pooled estimate (see appendix B1). Here, estimation errors may be uncorrelated, because people base their estimates on different past experiences or new evidence. The benefit of pooling information across individuals was first shown by Francis Galton [ 65 ]. He collected together the individual entries for a ‘guess the weight of the ox’ competition and showed that the average of these entries was closer to the truth than the single winning entry. This effect has been replicated experimentally for small groups [ 4 , 66 ] and large groups [ 1 , 67 ].

4.1.2. Wisdom of crowds

The promise of pooling information underpins recent attempts to harness the wisdom of crowds [ 68 ]. Central to these attempts has been the development of methods for combining individual judgements in cases where it is hard to establish people's expertise or honesty, such as when information is elicited over the Internet [ 69 , 70 ]. For some domains, the method used need not be complex. For example, a recent set of studies showed that, by adopting the decision favoured by the majority of independent dermatologists, the accuracy of skin and breast cancer diagnosis can be improved over and above the single-best individual [ 71 – 73 ]. This approach to diagnosis can overcome some of the issues revealed by advocates of evidence-based medicine [ 12 ].

4.1.3. Majority decisions

A common strategy for combining individual opinions into a group decision is to let each member vote on the available options and select the option favoured by the majority [ 74 , 75 ]. This majority rule may be perceived as the fairest solution if group members have very different preferences. However, the outcome of this process critically depends on the reliability of the information upon which individual opinions were based. It is therefore often advisable to use a weighted majority rule where individual reliability is taken into account ( figure 3 ). But how should reliability be assessed?

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g3.jpg

Weighting by reliability. The figure shows that the reliability of a pooled estimate is higher when each individual estimate is weighted by its reliability (weighted averaging) than when assigning equal weights to all individual estimates (simple averaging). In this simulation, we assumed that the individual estimates varied in terms of their reliability and were uncorrelated. See appendix B2 for mathematical details.

4.1.4. Social markers of reliability

One marker of reliability is status [ 76 , 77 ]. Group members may enjoy high status because of their rank (pay grade), seniority (time in office) or experience (he has been to war)—traits which we view as markers of reliability [ 78 – 80 ]. Another marker of reliability is the confidence with which an opinion is expressed [ 81 – 84 ]. Group members may express high confidence, because they have relevant past experience (prior) or strong evidence (likelihood) [ 41 ]. One solution to the weighting problem may be to ask each individual for an estimate of the proportion of people that they think will share their opinion: intriguingly, it can be shown that a procedure which assigns higher weight to opinions that are more popular than predicted generates better decisions than either the majority rule or the confidence-weighted alternative [ 70 ].

4.1.5. The remarkable success of open discussion

Discussion among members of small groups, when there is no time pressure, has proved an excellent strategy for making good use of the knowledge held by group members [ 85 – 91 ]. The reason revealed in these studies is that discussion involves a recalibration of markers of reliability. By arguing for or against the opinions put forward, we can assess the evidence on which each opinion was based [ 24 ]. In general, we are more likely to be swayed by a well-argued opinion than an opinion that is merely stated with high confidence [ 91 ]. By means of such recalibration, we can together increase the probability that no opinion is assigned undue weight.

4.2. Finding better solutions

4.2.1. pooling cognitive resources.

Groups have been shown to outperform individuals for many problems of probability and reasoning [ 92 , 93 ]. For example, in the Wason selection task , a well-known problem of logic, only 10–20% of individuals give the correct answer, but this increases for groups to around 70%. Groups also outperform individuals in economic games (e.g. Beauty-Contest ) [ 94 ]; find more efficient solutions to numerical problems (e.g. calculating tax returns) [ 83 , 95 ] and reach a level of abstraction for scientific topics (e.g. the concept of biological transmission) that is higher than expected from the sum of the members working alone [ 96 ]. Importantly, the benefits of having worked in a group can transfer to individual contexts, with individuals retaining good strategies developed together with others [ 83 , 92 ].

4.2.2. Combining efforts of explorers and exploiters

We can distinguish between people who tend to be exploiters and those who tend to be explorers [ 97 ] . Exploiters prefer to stay with their current model of the world, rather than switch to another. They consider a small part of the hypothesis space, refining the solution that first came to mind. Explorers, in contrast, prefer breadth. They consider a much larger part of the hypothesis space and are therefore less likely to be trapped on a local maximum. Their exploration activity, on the other hand, means that they may decide to act when it is too late [ 27 ]. The extent to which people exploit or explore is in part a matter of personality and of genetics [ 98 ]. Many animal groups, from honeybees to humans, contain a mixture of exploiters and explorers. A typical swarm of 10 000 honeybees will contain between 300 and 500 scout bees [ 99 ]. A mixture of such diverse individuals can create advantages for the group.

4.3. Overcoming hidden biases

Groups can help us discover the ‘beam that is in thine own eye’ (Matthew 7:3, KJV). While our own biases are often hidden from ourselves, we are remarkably good at detecting others' biases [ 100 , 101 ]. Another way in which groups can help individuals overcome individual biases is by changing the incentive structure of the problem at hand, either indirectly (e.g. reputation loss or gain) or directly (e.g. financial loss or gain). In some tasks, for example, group members spontaneously perform better than they would have had they been doing the task alone [ 102 , 103 ]. This enhancement, known as the Köhler effect [ 104 ], is thought to arise because group members do not want to be perceived as the weakest link [ 103 , 105 ]. When providing financial incentives, it is critical to strike a balance between individual incentives, which are distributed unevenly within the group, and group incentives, which are distributed evenly [ 106 ]: while individual incentives improve the speed of group decisions, group incentives improve accuracy [ 107 ]. Decisions, however, often cannot be both fast and accurate [ 108 ].

5. When group advantages are dissipated

Groups can overcome some, but not all, of the problems of individual decision-making. We will now consider a number of potential pitfalls facing group decisions, such as lack of independent knowledge, biases that skew the sharing of information or preferences and the problem of competing individual and group goals.

5.1. Lack of independent knowledge

Groupthink is perhaps the most well-known cause of bad group decisions. The term, which was popularized by the psychologist Irvin Janis in his case study of the Bays of Pigs Invasion [ 7 ], has been used with many meanings, but a common theme is that group members become less independent and behave as if they were a supersized individual. There are largely two causes of a lack of independence. First, group members are too similar to each other: their knowledge is based on similar past experiences and/or similar new evidence. Second, group members, even when initially dissimilar, adapt to each other's knowledge through social interaction. As a consequence of such correlations, individual errors are no longer independent and the benefit of pooling information across group members is reduced ( figure 4 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g4.jpg

Information-limiting correlations. The figure shows that the reliability of a pooled estimate saturates when the pooled information is correlated. In this simulation, we assumed that the individual estimates were equally reliable and correlated to a low, medium or high degree. See appendix B3 for mathematical details.

5.1.1. Group members are too similar to each other

It is often unavoidable that members of a group have had similar past experiences and therefore hold similar expectations about the world. In our social life, we tend to get together with people with whom we share backgrounds and personal characteristics [ 109 ]. In the workplace, we are often paired with people who have taken a path in life not too different from our own [ 109 ]. This tendency for ‘birds of a feather to flock together’ can increase group cohesion, but it can also have a negative effect on group decisions . When group members hold similar prior beliefs, their inferences will be biased in similar ways. This problem cannot be alleviated by asking group members to work independently. For example, members of the same political party are likely to interpret incoming data in the same way regardless of whether they discuss their interpretation with each other.

It is also often unavoidable that members of a group acquire similar information about the world. Similar people tend not only to have similar past experiences but also to acquire new evidence in similar ways. For example, they may read the same newspapers or listen to the same radio programmes. This problem is amplified on the Internet where search engines (e.g. Google) and social media (e.g. Facebook) organize content according to our location and browsing history—promoting information that fits our preferences, those of our friends or people who are estimated to be like us [ 110 ]. This personalization facilitates the creation of filter bubbles [ 111 ] and echo chambers [ 112 ] where information is created and recycled by like-minded individuals. When group members obtain correlated evidence, their conclusions will covary—regardless of whether they have correlated past experiences [ 113 ].

5.1.2. Group members converge too strongly

We have considered how individuals can hold non-independent knowledge because of circumstantial factors. Individuals may, however, actively adapt to each other's knowledge through group interactions—a phenomenon studied under the headings of herding , conformity and social influence [ 114 – 116 ]. Here, we distinguish between two types of social influence: people may adapt to each other's knowledge because of a desire to fit into the group or through believing that others have better knowledge.

5.1.3. Desire to fit into the group

A classic example of social compliance is Salomon Asch's line-judgement experiment [ 117 ]. Groups of eight male students were shown lines of varying length and asked to announce in turn which one matched a reference line. All but one of the participants were actors, instructed by Asch to give the wrong answer. Surprisingly, participants, who were seated such that they would always announce their answer last, yielded to the majority about 40% of the time, despite privately knowing the correct answer. More everyday examples include not admitting to our highbrow friends that we prefer milk chocolate and sweet wine.

5.1.4. Believing that others have better knowledge

In uncertain situations, individuals can gain information by observing others. When we are ignorant or learning is too tedious, we do well to ‘copy the majority’ or ‘copy the most successful’. These shortcuts capitalize on the facts that behaviours tend to be popular for a reason and that people tend to be successful because their behaviour is adaptive [ 20 ]. When we ourselves have useful information, these shortcuts may seem less useful. Still, we often ignore our own instincts and follow others instead [ 118 , 119 ]. For example, we may join a long queue of shoppers at a market stall because we assume that others are shopping there for a good reason. We may do this even if we believe that the goods at the stall are of dubious provenance. The psychological assumption that others typically act on good information can explain why beliefs and behaviours can rapidly spread through a group—in a so-called information cascade [ 119 ]—and why rational agents can make decisions that go against their own better knowledge.

5.1.5. Information cascade

Financial bubbles are an instructive example of an information cascade. A financial bubble is typically defined as the trading of an asset at a price that is much higher than its intrinsic, or true, value. It is, however, important to bear in mind that financial bubbles are identified in retrospect, once there has been a sudden drop in the price of the asset. During the build-up of a financial bubble, an individual trader may be uncertain about the true value of the asset and therefore be justified in inferring that buyers of the asset are acting on good evidence. For example, the trader may believe that the buyers have inside information that the asset is about to increase in value. In a sense, the trader is behaving as if the market is an agent with beliefs and intentions [ 120 ]. In this way, small fluctuations in trading activity can end up having huge financial implications.

5.2. Hidden group biases

5.2.1. shared information bias.

One well-established finding in the scientific literature is that group discussions tend to focus on information that is shared by all group members, often at the expense of information that is essential but only held by a minority [ 121 ]. This phenomenon is known as shared information bias or the hidden-profile effect . For example, a fellowship or a grant panel, which is often made up of people with different areas of expertise, may focus on factors that everybody is familiar with, such as an applicant's track record, and pay less attention to the parts which require specialist knowledge, such as the risk involved in using a new method [ 122 ]. As a result, the success of an application may depend more on the composition of the reviewing panel than the quality of the proposed work. There are a number of reasons for this focus on shared information. Circumstantial factors play a role. Shared information is more likely to be sampled, because it is held by a greater number of people [ 123 ]. The need to make fast decisions makes it less likely that important but time-consuming information is discussed [ 124 ]. Psychological factors also play a role. Group members may focus on shared information to increase their standing in the group as others tend to like us more, and judge us as more competent, if we know what they already know [ 125 ].

5.2.2. Amplifying biases

Groups often amplify the initial preference held by the majority of its members—an effect known as group polarization [ 126 , 127 ]. For example, when the initial preference of the majority is risk-seeking, then the group may take on more risk than its members would have done on their own [ 128 ]. By contrast, when the initial preference of the majority is risk-averse, then the group may make more cautious choices than its members would have done on their own [ 129 ]. Group polarization has been shown in high-stake situations, including courts of law. Here, jury members tend to shift towards harsher or more lenient verdicts after deliberation [ 130 ], and groups of judges take more extreme courses of action [ 131 ] than would have been expected given their initial preference.

There are different theories about this phenomenon [ 127 , 132 ]. One explanation is that preferences are spread by contagion, similar to moods [ 133 ] and automatic behaviours [ 134 ]. Evidence shows that the way in which our brain represents expected value adapts to relevant others; for example, a usually patient person, who interacts with an impatient other, comes to prefer immediate gratification [ 135 , 136 ]. Another factor is uncertainty about our own preferences [ 137 ], which makes us look to others for cues [ 138 ]. If we hear new arguments in favour of an initially weak preference, then it may make sense to strengthen it.

5.3. Competing goals

5.3.1. status and accountability.

Because humans have many complex and competing goals, it is only to be expected that some of us are more concerned with our status and reputation in the group than with making a good decision [ 139 ]. These motives can have disastrous consequences. Examples that have been prominent in the media are plane crashes and surgical errors where junior individuals did not voice valid concerns or were ignored by more senior colleagues [ 140 , 141 ]. A related factor which can become a preoccupation for group members is accountability —that is, the expectation that they will be asked to justify their opinions or actions to the group [ 142 , 143 ]. Group members may go to great lengths to lessen accountability. For example, they may shift their opinion towards the majority view regardless of their initial position. In contrast, when they are constrained by past commitments, they often spend their time justifying their initial position—a phenomenon known as defensive bolstering [ 143 ]. While the former behaviour may lead to the suppression of valid but minority viewpoints, the latter may waste valuable time and resources.

5.3.2. Social loafing

In many cases, individuals can enjoy the fruits of others' labour, exerting no or minimal effort themselves. This problem, known as social loafing or free-riding , occurs when group members can receive an equal share of a group benefit regardless of individual contribution (e.g. free healthcare funded by taxes or a shared grade for a school project). As a result, the group benefit may be depleted too soon, or not be as great as it could have been had everyone given their best. The classic example of social loafing is rope pulling where groups of individuals exert less effort than when they pull the rope individually—a relationship which only grows with group size (the Ringelmann effect; [ 144 ]). Several factors promote social loafing [ 145 ]: the belief that one's contribution cannot be identified, the belief that one's contribution is dispensable and the expectation that others will free-ride on one's contribution. Some people are more likely to hold these beliefs. For example, males [ 145 ], individuals from Western societies [ 145 ] and individuals who view themselves as better than average [ 146 , 147 ] are more likely to engage in social loafing, possibly because they have an inflated sense of the extent to which others will benefit ‘unfairly’ from their contribution.

6. Diversity as a means of recovering group advantages

A solution to the problem of group members becoming too similar to each other is to increase the diversity of the group.

6.1. Identity and functional diversity

We can distinguish between identity diversity, which refers to differences in personal characteristics such as gender, age and cultural background, and functional diversity, which refers to differences in how people cognitively represent and solve problems [ 148 ]. Identity diversity stimulates individual thought; people who are not like us make us reconsider our own position [ 149 , 150 ], reducing the risk of being stuck on a local peak when a better solution exists [ 151 ]. Functional diversity, which can be facilitated by identity diversity [ 152 , 153 ], ensures that the group more thoroughly searches the hypothesis space for better models of the world and better solutions to the problem at hand [ 148 ].

6.2. Cognitive division of labour

One common strategy for increasing functional diversity in a group is to assign each individual a unique role or area of expertise [ 154 ]. For example, in businesses, co-workers often develop, spontaneously or deliberately, transactive memory systems through which they encode, store and retrieve knowledge [ 155 , 156 ]. In particular, in the encoding stage, group members identify each other's areas of expertise. In the storage stage, information is passed on to the group member with the relevant expertise, which ensures fast individual learning with minimal effort. In the retrieval stage, a group member wishing to obtain certain information can simply turn to the established expert. If the information turns out to be unreliable, then the assignment of areas of expertise is revised, and the weight of the information source is adjusted. A transactive memory system thus allows groups of individuals to divide the search through the space of hypotheses and compare solutions refined by experts. The effectiveness of the system can be improved by appointing a ‘meta-knowledge’ champion who is aware of everyone's expertise and functions as a catalyst for information exchange [ 157 ].

7. Problems created by diverse groups

We can think of a group of people with different areas of expertise as a super-brain [ 158 ]. The group members correspond to populations of neurons which perform different functions, but whose output is brought together to make sense of the world [ 159 ]. There is, however, more room for error in groups than in the brain. The brain has already solved the problem of competition for influence [ 160 ] and relies on a central executive system to coordinate information processing [ 161 ]. Having a diverse group of people may result in time-consuming processes that in the end may not avoid miscommunication [ 152 , 153 ].

7.1. Inappropriate assessment of reliability and confidence

We have seen how groups can make better decisions by weighting each opinion by its reliability ( figure 3 ). It is, however, hard to judge the reliability of others' opinions if they are different from ourselves. In these cases, we often resort to inappropriate shortcuts. For example, we may view someone who is able to talk for a long time about a topic as an expert, but, as we all know, the most talkative people are not always right [ 162 , 163 ]. Even among highly educated people, women tend to be implicitly perceived as less competent than men [ 164 ]. This hidden bias can lead to the opinion of a women being ignored until it is voiced again by a man ( figure 5 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g5.jpg

The influence of an opinion on group decisions sometimes does not depend on how good it is but on who voiced it.

Another reason why it can be hard to judge the reliability of others’ opinions is that markers of reliability reflect many different factors. Take confidence as an example. There is an interesting and possibly surprising link between a person's status and their readiness to take risks confidently [ 165 ]. When our status is high, we have a lot to lose when proved wrong, and this makes us more cautious. However, when our status is low, we can be bold, as we have everything to gain if we turn out to be correct. Furthermore, there is often an ambiguous link between ability and confidence. Ironically, less competent individuals tend to have an inflated sense of their own ability [ 166 ]. There are also substantial individual differences in overt confidence, which vary with individual characteristics, such as personality [ 167 ], gender [ 168 ] and culture [ 169 ]. This variation increases the risk of miscommunication among diverse group members. The complexity brought out by diverse groups is perhaps one of the reasons why we tend to feel more comfortable in groups of individuals with similar background and cultural identity [ 109 , 170 , 171 ].

7.2. Equality bias

So far, we have not touched on genuine differences in ability, but of course they exist and, to come to a good decision, it is often necessary to discard, or at least discount, the opinions of less competent group members. This turns out to be difficult for us to do. Studies have shown that there is a bias in small groups to treat everyone as equal in terms of ability and thus assign an equal weight to each opinion [ 172 ]. In addition, members of small groups have been shown to match each other's overt confidence, further blurring differences in ability [ 173 ]. There are various possible explanations of such equality bias ; perhaps it serves to avoid conflict [ 174 ] or to diffuse the responsibility for difficult decisions [ 175 ]. The consequence of the bias is that, if a poor solution to a task is offered by an incompetent member and responses are pooled, this will inevitably drag down the accuracy of the group decision. When attempting to increase group diversity, we need to pay close attention to differences in ability. This is a tall order, as ability can be hard to assess in the absence of prior interactions or immediate feedback.

8. Recommendations

Our discussion of the literature builds on our interest in how groups of individuals make sense of information about the world, and how research can inform real-world decision-making. The findings that we have discussed are especially relevant to the workings of small groups, such as panels and committees, that make appointments and award grants. Such groups are committed to making good decisions and strive to make even better decisions. Many of the issues we have covered will merely seem good sense and have already been adopted in practice (e.g. at the Royal Society [ 172 ]). But, as is so often the case, it is easier to spot good sense in hindsight. With this in mind, what recommendations can we give?

8.1. Harnessing diversity

We have seen that having a diverse group of people facilitates the search for good models of the world and good solutions to problems [ 176 , 177 ]. There is, however, no guarantee that diverse groups will make better decisions than homogeneous groups. Sometimes, diversity leads to conflict, and no decision can be made at all. Sometimes, it causes miscommunication about who is more likely to be correct and the wrong action is taken. We have a ‘Goldilocks’ situation: individuals who differ too much can be as bad as individuals who are too similar. To harness the benefits of diversity, we must manage it appropriately.

8.1.1. Recruiting diversity

There is evidence for bringing together individuals who differ in terms of their identity (e.g. gender, age or culture), cognitive style (e.g. explore and exploit) and preferences (e.g. desires and goals). First, diversity in identity reduces the harmful effects of correlated past experiences and evidence: diverse people will tend to draw on different experiences and gather information in different ways. Second, diversity in cognitive style ensures a wider coverage of the hypothesis space over possible states of the world and possible actions that one could take [ 176 ]. Finally, diversity in preferences can decrease group polarization; when there is no single preference that is favoured by the majority of the group, individual differences smooth out rather than amplify [ 178 , 179 ].

8.1.2. Fostering diversity

Diversity may be built into the architecture of a group through specialization; specialization decreases the overlap of group members' knowledge, solutions and preferences [ 154 ]. One way to achieve specialization in an ad hoc manner is to divide the current task into sub-tasks. Offering individual incentives for completion of a sub-task, or holding individuals directly accountable for a sub-task, can facilitate specialization [ 180 ]. One advantage of increased identifiability of individual roles is that it reduces social loafing [ 181 , 182 ], perhaps because of the prospect of negative evaluation [ 183 ]. However, increased accountability can have unwanted side effects, such as group members suppressing original ideas for fear of negative evaluation [ 184 ], or wasting time and resources trying to defend exactly why they did as they did [ 143 ].

8.1.3. Avoiding miscommunication

If group members do not have a shared frame of reference, this can make information exchange inefficient. For example, when a grant panel scores applications, panellists from different backgrounds may give a different meaning to the grades on the scoring scale. In this case, tallying the grades can be very misleading [ 185 – 188 ]. Another example of this communication problem comes from the world of geopolitical forecasting which deals in statements of uncertainty. In the CIA note NIE 29–51, ‘Probability of an Invasion of Yugoslavia in 1951’, Sherman Kent and his colleagues at the Office of National Estimates wrote: ‘Although it is impossible to determine which course the Kremlin is likely to adopt, we believe that […] an attack on Yugoslavia in 1951 should be considered a serious possibility [emphasis added]’ [ 189 ]. When asked by the chairman of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff to put a number on ‘serious possibility’, Mr Kent asked his colleagues which odds they had in mind. It turned out that the intelligence officers, all expert forecasters, had very different odds in mind, ranging from 20–80 (20%) to 80–20 (80%) in favour of an invasion, rendering the recommendation useless. To avoid such miscommunication, a shared metric for exchanging information must be agreed upon at the outset of group discussions [ 81 , 86 , 173 ].

8.2. How to avoid common traps

8.2.1. weighting opinions.

The risks of equality bias can be countered if group members have equal competence at the task in hand [ 172 ]. Failing this, groups could decide to explicitly weight individual contributions [ 190 ]. Both are tricky: objective measures of competence are hard to come by and markers of reliability may be misleading.

8.2.2. Anonymous interaction

The risks of social conformity can sometimes be avoided by granting anonymity [ 191 ]. For example, the value of anonymous opinions is appreciated in pre-publication reviews. Honest feedback from peers and experienced experts is crucial for science to advance, but is difficult to realize in social situations. An unwanted side effect of anonymity is that it carries the well-known risk of free-riding and self-interest going undetected [ 145 , 192 ].

8.2.3. Uncovering information

There are various techniques which may help groups overcome shared information bias. One of them, instructed dissent , is to ask a subset of group members to play devil's advocate [ 193 ], always adopting the position opposite to the current consensus, or to ask each group member to adopt a position regardless of their individual stance [ 194 ]. A problem, however, is that contrived advocacy often has less influence on the listener compared to genuine advocacy, possibly because the arguments for an adopted position are made with less confidence [ 195 ]. Another technique is to have a no-interruption rule ; it tends to be unshared ideas, or group members who bring diversity to the discussion, such as women in male-dominated environments, who are cut short [ 196 ]. Each group member may also be allocated a fixed amount of floor time as speaking time tends to correlate with factors that are not relevant to the task at hand, such as power and gender [ 197 , 198 ]. Finally, when time permits, long discussions increase the probability that unshared information is eventually brought up [ 199 ].

8.2.4. Explicit rules

While free interaction is a good way to search the hypothesis space, it may also lead to a rapid narrowing of ideas; for example, group members may fixate on a small part of the hypothesis space or adapt to each other's ideas too quickly [ 114 , 116 ]. One technique designed to help groups overcome such information loss is the Delphi method , developed by members of the RAND Corporation in the 1950s [ 200 ]. This method has been shown to lead to better group decisions than unconstrained discussion for a variety of tasks [ 201 ]. In its classic form, group members privately outline their individual opinion and rationale; this information is then passed on to a moderator who collates an anonymized summary; group members are presented with this information and given the opportunity to revise their initial opinion; this process is repeated until consensus, or some pre-specified stop criterion, is reached [ 202 ]. There are several reasons why the Delphi method works: there is no fixation of the group discussion; anonymity removes the issues of evaluation apprehension and defensive bolstering; there is less room for production blocking as group members do not have to compete for speaking time, nor can they interrupt each other's train of thought; and the iterative process allows for individual changes of mind once good arguments surface [ 202 ].

8.2.5. Good leadership

Because of the complexities of group decision-making, it is wise to have a monitoring process in place. This can be achieved through a group chair or leader. The chair should make explicit the precise pitfalls that the decision-making process should avoid. The chair should be aware of the range of biases that might be at play and point them out when they occur. The chair should be particularly sensitive to group members not agreeing on the nature of the problem to be solved. In this case, discussion of their respective solutions will not be fruitful. Experience suggests that, sometimes, different ideas about which course of action is best to take may be rooted in different ideas about the problem at hand. Here, much time can be wasted in arguing about seemingly alternative solutions, which are, in fact, solutions to entirely different problems. Another important role of the group leader is to take into account the long-term goals of the group, especially when these are in conflict with immediate goals. For the overall effectiveness of a group, and the quality of its decisions over time, listening to everyone can be important, even if that means overweighting poor information for specific decisions. This is less the case for one-off panels assembled for a particular purpose, but it is a significant factor in building an effective group to deliver a long-term project. The chair should also be aware of the trade-off between speed and accuracy. Sometimes, the group moves too slowly and loses out on other opportunities. Sometimes, the group moves too quickly and delivers bad decisions as a result.

9. Conclusion

Our focus on biases may have given the impression that biases are something that we always need to overcome to make good decisions . However, this is not the story that we want to propagate. Biases are the reality of our cognitive system. It is the cost we pay for efficiency. We can think of biases as priors in the Bayesian framework. These priors have been passed on to us partly by nature and partly by culture. They often stand us in good stead. Biases can help us make decisions in novel situations where our learned habits cannot guide us. They avoid dithering, which can be fatal. But, biases are a bad thing when they are out of date and inappropriate. They can also lead us to get stuck on local maxima.

Can we change our biases consciously? We are not usually conscious of our biases at the time we make a decision, but we can reflect on them afterwards and they are malleable. They are also more obvious to others, especially diverse others, than they are to ourselves, and can thus be the subject of discussion. Why should we wish to change our biases? The reason is simple: if we surrendered to our biases wholesale, there would only ever be business as usual, and we would not improve our models of the world and find better solutions to the many problems that we face.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Uta Frith for commissioning this article, for her guidance during the writing process and for comments on earlier versions of the article. We also thank Rani Moran for discussions about the mathematics of information integration in groups.

Appendix A. Bayesian inference

Hypotheses play a central role in decision-making: when we make a decision, we typically weigh up the evidence in favour of, and the evidence against, competing hypotheses about the current problem and how best to solve it. For example, by examining a patient's medical history and test results, a doctor seeks to identify the diagnosis that is most likely to be correct and the treatment that is most likely to be successful. Ideally, we wish to use a principled method for evaluating a hypothesis and for updating it as new evidence arrives. Bayesian inference achieves exactly that by leveraging past experience and new evidence in a statistical manner. The fundamental Bayesian idea is that we can represent our degree of belief in a hypothesis as a probability. We can therefore use the laws of probability to update our degree of belief as new evidence comes to light.

The workhorse in Bayesian inference is Bayes' theorem, named after Thomas Bayes (1701–1761). The theorem allows us to ask: what is the probability that a hypothesis is true given the new evidence? There are two major components that enter into this calculation. The first component is the prior . The prior describes our degree of belief in the hypothesis before considering the new evidence; it encapsulates background information and relevant past experience. The second component is the likelihood . The likelihood describes how consistent we think the new evidence is with the hypothesis; for example, how likely we think we are to observe heads on 9 out of 10 coin tosses under the hypothesis that the coin is fair. The likelihood critically depends on our model of how the world works ; for example, we assume that coins fall either way equally often if they are fair. Another term that we need to understand is the posterior . This is the integration of the prior and the likelihood. The posterior describes our degree of belief in the hypothesis after incorporating the new evidence; it can be used to evaluate the goodness of the hypothesis, and it can function as the prior in the next iteration of Bayes’ rule. We illustrate Bayes' rule and Bayesian updating in figures 6 and and7 7 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g6.jpg

Bayesian inference. ( a ) Bayes' theorem. Here, ‘ p ’ means probability and ‘|’ means given , so p (hypothesis|evidence) means probability that the hypothesis is true given the evidence . The normalizing constant , which is not discussed in the appendix, is the marginal likelihood of observing the data irrespective of the hypothesis and ensures that the posterior probabilities for the different hypotheses add up to 1. ( b ) Using Bayes' theorem in diagnostic inference. A doctor wishing to compute the probability that a patient has prostate cancer given a positive test result, p (+cancer|positive). We know that the test makes correct detections in 75% of cases, p (positive|+cancer) = 0.75, and gives false positives in 10% of cases, p (positive|−cancer) = 0.10. We also know that the base-rate of prostate cancer is only 4%, p (+cancer) = 0.04.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g7.jpg

Bayesian updating. We are presented with a biased coin that gives heads on 30% of tosses. Each heat map shows how our posterior (colours) over hypotheses about coin bias (vertical axis) evolves as we observe more and more coin tosses (horizontal axis). The white line indicates the true value. The prior at a given point in time is the posterior from the previous point in time. The prior for time 1 was set to be ( a ) flat across hypothesis, ( b ) centred on the truth or ( c ) centred on a wrong value.

Why is it important that we take into account both the prior and the likelihood? Consider the example in figure 6 . A doctor administers a diagnostic test for prostate cancer, which makes correct detections in 75% of cases and gives false positives in only 10%. What is the probability that the patient has prostate cancer given a positive result? Most people, even some doctors, will suggest about 70%, focusing on the result of the diagnostic test [ 203 ]. If, however, prostate cancer is only found in 4% of men, then, as the calculation in figure 6 shows, the correct answer is only about 24%. It is also important that we take into account the precision of the prior and the likelihood. If the estimate of the base rate of prostate cancer is vague or comes from an unreliable source, then we should give more weight to the diagnostic test. In Bayesian inference, precision can be implemented by representing beliefs with probability distributions rather than single point estimates. We illustrate the concept of precision in figure 8 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is rsos170193-g8.jpg

Precision. The plot shows the prior, the likelihood and the posterior represented with probability distributions rather than point estimates (i.e. single numbers). We consider a biased coin as in figure 7 . The width of a distribution is known as its variance and precision is the inverse of variance: 1/variance. When the prior and the likelihood are integrated, the posterior distribution will move towards the more precise component. Note that, because we combine multiple sources of information, the posterior distribution is more precise than either of the two distributions.

Appendix B. Group performance under different strategies

For all simulations, we assumed that the group and its members are estimating the value of a continuous variable (e.g. the weight of an Ox as in Galton's classic study). We explored the effect of different strategies and circumstances on the precision (reliability) of the joint estimate.

B.1. Reliability of joint estimate grows with group size

We assume that the individual estimate, x , of each group member, i , is sampled from a Gaussian distribution, N ( s , σ 2 ), where the mean, s , is the value of the variable being estimated and where the standard deviation, σ , is set to 1. We assume that the group computes its joint estimate by averaging the individual estimates:

where n is the group size. Since the errors of individual estimates follow a Gaussian distribution, the error of the joint estimate will do the same. For a given group size, the standard deviation of the joint estimate is

and the precision of the joint estimate is

It turns out that there is a linear relationship between group size and reliability.

B.2. It is important to weight opinions by their reliability

We assume that the individual estimate, x , of each group member, i , is sampled from a Gaussian distribution, N ( s , σ i 2 ) , where the mean, s , is the value of the variable being estimated and where the standard deviation, σ i , is sampled uniformly from the range 1–4. As such, the estimates of the best group member can have up to 16 times less variance than the worst group member. When the individual estimates differ in terms of their precision, the optimal strategy is to weight each estimate by its precision:

where n is the group size. Under this optimal strategy, the precision of the joint estimate is the sum of individual precisions:

where the individual precision is p i = 1 / σ i 2 .

The simple averaging strategy does not take into account individual precision:

where n is the group size. For a given group size, the standard deviation of the joint estimate is

We computed each data point for the figure by averaging across 1000 simulations.

B.3. Correlated opinions reduce the reliability of the joint estimate

We assume that the individual estimate, x , of each group member, i , is sampled from a multivariate Gaussian distribution, N (s, Σ ), where s is the mean vector

where s is the same for all group members, and where Σ is the covariance matrix in which Σ j , j = 1 and Σ j , k = r for i ≠ j , where r describes the correlation between individual estimates. Here, we used r = 0.1, r = 0.3 and r = 0.6. We assumed that the group computes its joint estimate, z , by averaging the individual estimates:

By conducting simulations, we can compute the expected variance under the simple averaging strategy as the squared error of the mean joint estimate:

where q is the number of simulations. We can then compute the expected precision under the simple averaging strategy as

Data accessibility

Authors' contributions.

D.B. and C.D.F. wrote the manuscript. D.B. performed the simulations.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust 091593/Z/10/Z.

Using groups for decision-making: the key risks and challenges for leaders and how to deal with them

Published by mike owen on 2022-01-17 2022-01-17.

Human brains are quite inefficient cognitive machines. All of us regularly fail to see things accurately around us, we make poor assumptions, we misremember facts, we give in to cognitive biases, and we often make decisions based on emotional whims, rather than thinking rationally. In short, as individuals, we get things wrong, a lot of the time!

So, do groups fare better? Are two (or more) heads usually better than one at problem-solving and decision-making?

It might perhaps seem obvious that groups, by pooling information and experience of a number of people and engaging in constructive argument, will naturally tend to do better. Equally, it’s easy to appreciate how a group can help to mitigate against common individual biases and weaknesses (e.g. inaccurate rating of one’s abilities, over reliance on one’s own experience, and preferring options that favour one’s own interests).

Well, actually, groups can be better than individuals – but not always. In fact, groups come with many of their own issues and problems and, in many circumstances, can actually perform worse than individuals. Such problems are not widely understood by leaders, not least because many of the biases and processes behind them operate subconsiously.

So, leaders need to be aware, firstly, of some of the key problems groups can face and, secondly, be familiar with a range of measures they can take to try and address those problems.

Problems that leaders can face with groups

Here’s a summary of some of those problems that frequently affect groups:

i) Amplifying of indvidual biases : Whilst groups can sometimes usefully moderate certain individual biases (including, research has indicated, individuals over-stressing their own experience or beliefs, prioritising more memorable or recent facts, and ‘anchoring’ biases), conversely, risk of other biases can increase in groups – especially excessive optimism/overconfidence, belief in planning, commitment to a course of action that is already failing, and stereotyping..

ii) Group polarisation : In groups – especially closely-knit groups – deliberating together usually reduces variance and most members come into accord with one another and also tend to become much more confident of their collective judgment (whether it is actually correct or not). Unfortunately, this coming together of minds can often go further and members’ initial views or preferences become more extreme and more strongly felt (due to the social reinforcement effect of members seeing others sharing the same views as theirs). This makes the whole group become more obstinate, defensive and closed-minded – particularly vis-a-vis goup ‘outsiders’ who hold contrary views.

iii) Lack of diversity : Where members of a group are very similar in background, circumstances, opinions or beliefs, this can certainly increase group cohesion. However, a lack of diversity in such respects can easily hinder independent thinking by group members, limit the variety of experiences and opinions heard, and thwart wide-ranging discussion.

iv) ‘ Cascading ‘: This refers to the tendency sometimes in groups for members to follow (herd-like!) the statements and actions of those who speak or act first. Often this is because the members following judge that they have inferior knowledge, information or skill regarding the subject in question and/or simply don’t wish to spend energy or time thinking about the issue themselves.

v) Groupthink : This quite well-known term refers to when group members tend towards uniformity in their views because they do not want to upset the cohesiveness of the group or risk personally losing the liking or approval of other group members.

Other problems leaders can face with groups

vi) ‘ Happy-talk ‘: This occurs when the group leader focuses on maintaining a positive and enjoyable atmosphere in the group and discourages critical questioning, negative thinking, or challenging of ideas. This leads group members to avoid being fully honest or open and referring to any bad news or issues. The group becomes complacent and dysfunctional. Instead, the leader ideally needs, alongside being cheerful and positive, to show some degree of (moderate) anxiety and even doubt or scepticism in order to help stimulate constructive debate.

vii) Domineerig, confident or expert individuals : Where a group contains members who have a dominating personality or style, or they simply appear more self-confident in their views, then such individuals may well sway the opinions of several other members. The risk is that wider discussion and the group moves too quickly to accept the view of the confident individual, whose opinion may not actually be fully correct or the most suitable course of action.

viii) Leader’s ‘halo-effect’: Similarly, this is where group members follow the views of the leader because of his/her authority or status or, simply, perceived strength of personality. Often some group members will ‘over-perceive’ attractive qualities in the group’s leader (for example, the leader’s jokes seem funnier, or their perspective seems wiser), which casues them to go along with his/her views without much thinking of their own.

ix) Shared information bias (also known as ‘hidden-profile effect’): this well-proven problem refers to the tendency in groups for members to focus on information that is alreay known to and shared by all group members and the hesitancy sometimes of members to reveal/share information that is only known to them individually (or to a minority of members). This risk of limited disclosure can often seriously undermine the quality of group discussion.

x) Competing goals & social loafing: As humans have different goals and interests, it is natural that some members in a group may prioritise what suits them personally rather than making a good group decision. Ensuring that the group does not damage a member’s personal status or reputation is an example of a common concern. Another example is the concern sometimes of a group member to lessen personal accountability by limiting participation in the group and sinmply going along with whatever the majority views ends us as (a behaviour known as social-loading or free-riding).

How to improve the effectiveness of groups

In theory, it is easy to think how a group should be able to be more efficient than individuals – by pooling information and experience and letting the ‘give and take’ of deliberation arrive at an overall judgment or solution of the whole group which is better than any individual member’s judgment. It is also easy to think how the quality of the overall viewpoint would be especially good if the group contains some individuals who are particularly well-informed or experienced about the issue at-hand and/or the group includes members who have a useful variety of relevant skills.

But, unfortunately, because of the potential impact of the above range of problems, groups are far from being more effective decision-makers than individuals. Principally this is due to the distorting influence of the ‘social dynamics’ between group members (i.e. how they behave to each other inside the group) and, secondly, the typically limited disclosure and aggregating of information held by group members.

So, what are some useful measures leaders can take to try and reduce the effect of the above problems? Here are some specific actions I would recommend:

i) Collect information and opinions from individuals before the group meets: To ensure the collective knowledge of a group is properly accessed and to counter bias and groupthink, try gathering input from group members individually and anonymously before they meet together. Then circulate a shared document asking for everyone to comment on ideas or suggestions received, again independently and anonymously, without assigning any of the comments to particular team members.

ii) Split up the group decision-making process into two (or three) stages : Too often groups close down discussion and make a decision before they have generated enough ideas. So, try relying less on just one meeting. An effective approach can be to first hold a group meeting aimed at generating ideas and perspectives – where a focus on divergent, creative thinking is particularly useful – and then a second meeting to focus on crtiically assessing ideas and reaching a solution, where a more convergent thinking focus is appropriate. The other advantage of this split approach is that you can include some individuals in each group who are known to have a stronger affinity with the focused thinking approach needed.

iii) Use a diverse group rather than a homogenous group (most of the time): Groups whose members vary in their characteristics and have different points of view usually more effectively counter biases. But not always – context matters. When the task or decision is relatively complex or needs innovative thinking, then a diverse group will especially tend to do best. However, if the issue is relatively straighforward or needs quite structured or controlled thinking, then a homogenous group will tend to do better.

iv) Use a small group when you need to make an important decision : Research shows that groups with seven or more members are likely to make more biased decisions. By keeping your group to between three and five or six people – a size that people more naturally gravitate toward when interacting – you’ll be able to reduce the effects of bias but still benefit from multiple perspectives.

v) Ensure a safe, respectful and open atmosphere in the group : The group leader has a vital role to play in ensuring that all group members feel they can speak up without fear of retribution (what is sometimes called ‘psychological safety ‘). His/her manner and facilitative approach must be encouraging, fair and positive. Discussion and comment should be centered around issues (rather than personalise any issues) and the leader should avoid giving his/her opinions on a topic until everyone else has spoken. If the leader is not a good faciltitator, engage an external, professional facilitator, which then allows the regular group leader to focus on contributing to the discussions. Also, of course, a friendly, open tone to a group meeting will be achieved more easily if all (or most) of the group members (not just the leader or facilitator) have been selected partly because they have good empathy and social-sensitivity skills.

vi) Appoint a team member to be ‘devil’s advocate’ : Give one of the team the deliberate role and right to ask questions and challenge colleagues’ thinking during the discussion and decision-making process. For larger groups of seven or more members, perhaps appoint two such advocates, so that a sole dissenter is not isolated by the rest of the group.

vii) Assign specific roles to group members : To help achieve a more complete and rigorous discussion and assessment of the problem at hand, allocate to each group member a specific angle or area of concern to focus their thinking and comments around. For example, for a group discussion about assessing a potential new product, assigned roles could include the company’s marketing team, current customers, the main competitor, the company’s finance director, and the company’s production or technical director.

viii) Plan some structure to group discussions in advance : In a group meeting discussion will be so much more efficient and fruitful if the leader (or facilitator) thinks carefully in advance about what range of issues needs to be considered and defines a suitable outline framework (semi-structure) for running the meeting, including a rough time plan and set of specific questions or decisions that need to be addressed for each part of the meeting. Without some degree of structure, deliberation risks becoming unfocussed and there is more room for the behavioural dynamics of a group to skew or distort how matters are considered (e.g. domineering members influencing quieter members).

ix) I n discussions, particularly discourage bias at the start and when v iews/ votes are needed at the end: At the opening of a discussion session, it’s a good idea if the leader proactively reminds the whole group of the general risk of bias and asks for members actually to suggest any particular biases they think may apply in the upcoming discussion. And when the time comes for each individual to indicate their final view on a topic, ideally try and let each person reveal their position at the same time, independently and confidentially: in a virtual discussion, this may be quite easy because group members can use their online ‘vote’ button and/or use the private ‘chat’ facility to indicate their judgment to the group leader/facilitator.

x) Align incentives to ensure group members are motivated to work together well: Check that individuals in the group don’t have personal goals, incentives or other rewards in their jobs that are in conflict with the group’s overall aims – for example, a board director who is on a bonus scheme based on sales growth whilst another director’s bonus is based on profitability. Where incentives are not in harmony, they should be adjusted.

Consulting experts and others ‘outside’ the group

Beyond the above list of measures for improving group deliberations, there is also the opportunity sometimes for groups to consider consulting or involving other people outside the group, to access wider advice or opinion.

People who have a relevant expertise are an obvious choice. However, care should be taken. Turning to an expert for some specific piece of information or provision of a specific skill for application today can certainly serve a group well, but research shows that if you want to use an expert rather to give advice or predictions about the future, then experts frequently prove much less competent than you might expect.

Often this is simply because their knowledge and skill are founded on what they have learned or seen in the past and the unpredictability of the future does not, of course, mean that the future will be necessarily like the past! Also, research actually suggests that the better known an expert is, often the poorer his/her predictions are: this is because they are more concerned typically to protect their ‘status’ – which is based on past knowledge and beliefs – rather than being open to seeing things afresh. Sadly, though, users of experts are often ‘taken in’ by experts’ fame or apparent high level of confidence, which can bely their true competence.

So, avoid blind trust in expert opinion! Consult an expert, yes, but don’t actually make them part of your decision-making group itself, as they are very likely to sway others’ views too easily. Better still, if possible, seek the views of several experts rather than depending on just one. The average answer from a group of experts will always statistically have an advantage over individual experts.

Beyond consulting some experts, you might want to canvass the views of a still larger number of people – the so-called ‘wisdom of the crowd’. You may wish to do this principally becuase constitutional or ‘political’ factors in your organisation expect wider involvement of colleagues in decision-making, or you may think simply that consulting more peope beyond just a ‘core’ group will tend to yield a better informed, better quality decision overall. In such circumstances, of course, it is again the ‘average’ (i.e. middle or most common) viewpoint or opinion found from across everyone that will be taken to be the final decision.

But, actually, it would be a big mistake to believe that the best approach with group decision-making is always to ask a larger number of people and to take the average answer. Research indicates that this approach is likely to work only under particular circumstances: those in which many or most people are more likely than not to be right – because, crucially, they have a good level of relevant knowledge and they are not materially biased or prejudiced in some way about the issue at-hand (e.g. favouring older theories) or in their general cognitive ways (e.g. a tendency toward unrealistic optimism).

Additionally, the views of everyone should be collected separately and independently with no chance of any individual knowing any other’s viewpoint or judgment (thus avoiding any risks of social influencing in the process). And another ideal feature of large groups for decision-making is that they should have a good level of diversity (in terms of group members’ characteristics, circumstances, beliefs etc), especially if the problem or issue is complex, novel or challenging.

In truth, these conditions are usually difficult to achieve or are rarely followed to a signficant degree (for example, a potentially successful scenario could be a marketing director asking his marketing team whether to hire a certain job candidate, but it might be unreasistic to expect each team member to give their assessment of the candidate privately/anonymously). It is simply unrealistic to expect that all individuals in a large group will be free of any prejudices or biases themselves, that they all will have good/relevant knowledge, and there will be no communication or influencing between indviduals at all. Sadly, though, this leads to the fact that, if and when a large number of people is consulted on an issue, then the likely result is that the average position or judgment taken will be wrong (or at least ‘sub-optimal’).

Given this reality, therefore, in most cases, it is normally better for leaders to avoid seeking widespread views from larger numbers of people. Instead, t he most effective thing to do will usually be for leaders to focus their efforts on relying on a smaller group of suitably well-qualified individuals and doing as much as possible to ensure robust and effective deliberation by that group.

In overall terms, groups can be very suitable and effective for supporting decision-making and problem-solving in organisations, offering many potential benefits over individuals working alone. However, groups do come with many potential risks and problems of their own, as explored above. So, leaders need to be familiar with some of the measures suggested above how to mitigate those challenges – with group composition and deliberation process being key areas to look at.

Decision making & problem solving, 10 ‘bias-busting’ questions to ask your team before you decide on their strategic review, big idea, or major proposal.

Most leaders today are aware how ‘cognitive biases’ (e.g. ignoring some new evidence because it contradicts an existing belief you hold) can distort organisational decision-making. The difficulty is that biases are mostly unconscious things and Read more…

17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

There are many ways to make a decision in a group environment, whether you find yourself in a personal or professional situation. One of the most popular methods to use is the group decision-making method. Instead of forcing one person into a leadership role where they decide for everyone, this process gives a topic to an entire group where a fusion of each opinion and set of experiences allows for a collective decision to occur.

When group decision making is the processed used to create forward momentum, then the final outcome cannot be changed by a single member of the group. Everyone must come together, no matter how much or little they agree with the eventual decision, to implement or overturn the choices being made in each scenario.

Group decisions must consist of at least two people, but it is a process that does not have an upper limit. It is a way to assign accountability to multiple parties in a group, manage conflict escalation, and identify alternatives that may not be possible with individualized choices.

There are several advantages and disadvantages of group decision making to consider before finalizing any choice.

List of the Advantages of Group Decision Making

1. You will receive more diversity in the availability of opinions. This advantage speaks to the diversity that is in your group. Whenever you bring in people from different educational backgrounds, family environments, and personal experiences, then you will receive a wide array of perspectives that can help you to reach a better overall decision in almost any situation. People who come from unique situations will always have different ideas than a group of individuals who all have a similar life story to share.

When you can engage the help of a number of people who can all come up with different ideas, then there are several new alternatives that can become available that wouldn’t be present otherwise.

2. It promotes greater interest and participation from the rest of the team. You need to have dedicated and interested people on your team when decisions need to be made because that is the only way that you can get some buy-in for the process. This advantage is necessary in the personal and professional choices that may be necessary. When people are asked to engage in a process that could impact their needs, then they are typically willing to look for innovative ideas, efficient plans, and active participation to create a successful outcome that works for everyone.

Even if you do not have a group of experts on your team that can address the specific needs of an upcoming project, their feedback to your ideas can help you to see things in a different way if you’re willing to keep an open mind.

3. You’ll create more understanding and positivity within the team. People are resistant to change when they don’t understand why a shift in perspective is necessary. There are times when the wheel doesn’t need to be reinvented, after all. It is also essential to realize that without communication and discussion, any decisions that do get made will encounter resistance when there is no explanation as to why a new series of events is suddenly necessary.

By engaging the entire group in a discussion about what needs to happen, you will create more acceptance of the final outcome. You may receive some interesting or exciting suggestions or opinions that could move you in an unexpectedly better direction because there is a fresh perspective available.

4. It creates an opportunity to create collective contributions. The average decision made by a single individual can be partial or biased in its outcome. These choices usually work in the favor of the person who is in charge of implementing the solutions that are necessary. By moving the final choice to a group scenario, there is less power in the leadership’s influence over everyone else. It is a process that removes the barriers of discussion monopolies that can force people into a specific outcome which might not be the best solution in those circumstances.

By reducing the risks of bias and partiality, it becomes possible to reach an outcome that can favor a majority of the people in the ground.

5. You can take advantage of team building opportunities. Active participation in the decision-making process creates a unique team-building opportunity for the entire group. You are inspiring healthy debate and passionate discussions about important topics when you embrace this concept personally or professionally. Some of those conversations might be difficult, but any action that works to proactively coordinate the efforts of team members can result in an efficient outcome.

This process also creates a secondary advantage where the skills of each team member can slowly transfer over to others in the group, creating individual benefits as the organization continues to improve at the same time.

6. It promotes the idea that collective thinking is an advantage. Group decision making is beneficial because it offers a diverse set of views that work toward a creative, positive outcome for each person involved with the process. It sets the stage for compromise because it can reduce the impact of extreme views while the group can also strive toward a meaningful result that might be outside of the usual framework of what they do. The entire process becomes advantageous to the teams willing to go through this investment because the eventual outcome is to create something that is mutually beneficial to everyone.

7. Group decision making can increase the strength of an organization. Change happens whenever a decision is made, whether it is by a single leader or an entire group. When people can come together to discuss the issues that they will face when change occurs, then the resiliency of the organization and the team will increase. The chances that a cost-effective answer that works within an acceptable structure will be discovered increase when this advantage is present.

By increasing the strength of the entire team, the organization benefits too because the executive leadership is only as good as the people who are working at an entry-level position. This advantage eventually leads to a higher job satisfaction rating up and down the chain-of-command because there are more opportunities to learn from one another.

8. It is a process that allows a team to take advantage of a smart risk-taking opportunity. Many people are unwilling to take a risk because of the potential exposure they have to the final outcome. When you place these individuals into a group setting, then the risk levels spread out to each team member instead of residing with a single person. That makes it more likely for the entire group to take a chance on an innovative solution instead of remaining with the status quo.

Organizations benefit from this process because innovation typically leads to better revenues. By encouraging smart risks where the payoff benefits are greater than a potential loss, it is easier for the entire team to find new ways to grow.

List of the Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

1. The group decision-making process can take a significant amount of time to complete. When you have a lot of time available before a decision must be made, then engaging with the entire group can create many advantages. If you need to reach a conclusion rapidly, then an individual choice instead of a group one is a better solution to pursue. That’s because it takes more time for team members to reach a consensus when compared to a supervisor who can make a unilateral decision for everyone.

Every member of the group adds a time need to the decision-making process. That means a two-member group will reach a choice faster than a 200-member group, but both will be slower than the team who relies on their leader to make the choice for everyone.

2. You can receive irrelevant opinions and ideas with the group decision-making process. Everyone will bring their unique ideas to the table when you encourage a group discussion. This process can provide a number of benefits, but it can also turn into a choice where each person works harder at protecting their best interests instead of promoting the general welfare of the team. It is a disadvantage that can highlight the disparities found in the group, which can eventually lead to a reduction in efficiencies or quality in the final choice.

People can also bring ideas to the table that they think are based on expertise, but are really evidence of a lack of knowledge. You can have people fighting for irrelevant opinions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand because everyone thinks that their stance is the correct one.

3. Some people refuse to share their perspectives during group decision making. There are times when people decide to remain silent during a group discussion because they have nothing that they want to add to the conversation. They have decided before this process that they’re going to “roll with the punches” and follow whatever outcome occurs. This disadvantage can create a room full of silence where the leader is still expected to come up with the final decision.

Some team members might decide to stay silent because of social pressures as well. It can be a negative component of this process that can lead teams toward the wrong decision because there are too many loud voices that drown out the softer, quieter tidbits of expertise that get shared.

4. Groups can have a different priority than what the decision requires. The group decision-making process creates a number of ideas that come up for discussion. It is not unusual for everyone to focus on a specific number of them, sometimes just 1-2 alternatives, instead of trying to look at the bigger overall picture. Their focus can be based on what their best interests are in that situation, the popularity of the people proposing the idea, or other factors that may not be consequential to the final result.

This disadvantage can lead to a limitation of choices instead of an expansion of them. Groups can find themselves stuck to only a few ideas because of their stubbornness. It is a process which results in less efficiency instead of more when it occurs.

5. The final choice can go against the outcomes of an organization. Most group discussions will eventually get to a point where the decisions carry out the mission, vision, and objectives of the organization. Then there are the times when the choices made and carried out by the group does not always accomplish the goals that are necessary in the situation. If there is not agreement in the group with the desired wish of the organization, either personally or professionally, then it can lead to disruptive behavior in the future. This process results in fewer goals reached, movement away from the mission, and objectives that have no bearing on what the final outcome must be.

6. Groups reduce the amount of accountability that occurs in the workplace. When one person makes a decision for everyone, then the positive or negative accountability that occurs because of that process can ensure the appropriate outcomes can happen. If a group makes a decision that fails, then there is uncertainty on who to blame. Is the whole group responsible for the outcome? What about the people who objected to the final decision, yet they still get lumped in with everyone else despite their opposition?

When groups decide to take more risks when employing this process, then there is a possibility that a greater, more valuable reward becomes possible. It also means people will be quick to assign blame instead of taking responsibility for an outcome that fails to live up to its full potential. Leaders in this situation are the most likely to use this disadvantage to shift the blame to someone else.

7. It can result in an overuse of authority. Group discussions are designed to create more unity and harmony within the workplace environment. The idea is that by getting people onto the same page at the earliest possible stage, it becomes easier to reach the objections, goals, and vision of the organization. This process is similar to what occurs in the family environment as well.

There are times when an opinion can be influenced by someone in authority over them, which allows a leader to dominate the discussion. This disadvantage can cause some members of the group to become less involved with team activities, which increases the risk of more silos.

8. Group decision making can cause everyone to see themselves as a leader. Organizations require people to be in leadership positions because there needs to be individuals in charge of team development, project implementation, and mentorship. When the group decision-making process is a top priority, then there can be times when multiple members of a team can start thinking that they are in a leadership role with their company. Most workers will use the little bit of power they’re given in this process to benefit themselves and their organization, but it can also cause a few people to think that they are in charge.

When you have team members outside of the supervisor or manager handing out assignments, enforcing company policy, and even trying to manage disciplinary actions, then this disadvantage can reduce the amount of creativity that is available in the workplace.

9. People in a group can decide to “go with the flow.” One of the most significant problems with the group decision-making process is that team members can decide that their top priority is to avoid conflict instead of fighting for their ideas. This disadvantage can quickly lead to a problem that is call “group think.” You can spot it happening when the loudest voice in the room is the one getting all of the ideas to pass. Discussions don’t need bullies to create a successful outcome. An organization needs people to be brave enough to support their concepts while providing evidence that it could be a meaningful solution.

Because of the dynamics of this disadvantage, it is not unusual for teams to begin polarizing around 1-3 central figures. People who disagree with the outcome get lumped into “outsider” categories by all parties. It becomes an us vs. them conversation over time instead of a discussion of ideas.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

Group decision making can be an effective way to encourage team members to share their experiences, education, and perspectives in a safe environment to further the goals of a personal or professional team. You can take advantage of multiple opinions to find a better choice.

This process can also be easy to manipulate, especially if one of the participants is a leader who can control the professional outcomes of the discussion participants. Teams must take risks to find results, and it is important to note that some leaders may not appreciate that concept.

The advantages and disadvantages of group decision making can help leaders to structure conversations that lead toward improved outcomes. It can also create a deafening silence where no one on the team cares about what happens because there is no credit or accountability for the results.

Sending emails to users to complete Assignments

I want to send emails containing Assignment URLs so an end user can fill an Assignment out without having to login to the Decisions portal. Is there a way to do this?

Hey there,

You can absolutely do so by setting up the Guest Account within Decisions for Anonymous Tasking.

You can use the optional Guest account within Decisions for users to access Designer Elements, such as Flows or Assignments, without having to have a specified Account.

Typically, you can send an email containing an Assignment URL link which when clicked will open the associated Assignment Form. Whenever a Form is assigned to the Guest Account, no login page will appear upon the user going to process it.

The following documentation provides a detailed overview of how to set this configuration up within Decisions:

Using Guest Account for Anonymous Tasking: Using Guest Account for Anonymous Tasking - Configuring Assignees (decisions.com)

Hope this helps!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

4K All Categories
196 Installation / Setup
250 Administration
482 General Q & A
327 Reports
3 Designer Extensions
45 Example Flows
49 CSS Examples
1 Diagram Tile
6 Javascript Controls
3 Process Mining
New Features
174 Datastructures
65 Repository
208 Integrations
27 Multi-Tenant
56 Settings
25 Active Directory
12 Version 7
35 Version 8
24 Lunch And Learn Questions

SI SWIMSUIT
SI SPORTSBOOK

Mets Make a Decision on Starling Marte; Star Reliever Nearing Rehab Assignment

Joe calabrese | 0 minutes ago.

Jun 19, 2024; Arlington, Texas, USA; New York Mets right fielder Starling Marte (6) hits an rbi double during the fourth inning against the Texas Rangers at Globe Life Field. Mandatory Credit: Kevin Jairaj-USA TODAY Sports

New York Mets

Starling Marte will be in the New York Mets lineup Sunday for the final game of their three-game series against the Miami Marlins.

Manager Carlos Mendoza confirmed during his press conference Saturday before the Mets take on the Marlins in the middle game at Citi Field. Marte was placed on the 10-day injured list on June 25 (retroactive to June 23) with a bone bruise in his right knee.

Starling Marte still on track to be activated Sunday, Mendoza said — Laura Albanese (@AlbaneseLaura) August 17, 2024

Marte went 0-for-3 with a sacrifice fly Friday, playing all nine innings in his second consecutive full game at Triple-A Syracuse. The Mets assigned Marte to Single-A Port St. Lucie on August 7, then Double-A Binghamton on August 11.

“He’s a big part of this ballclub,” Mendoza said following a 7-3 Mets victory Friday against the Marlins. The manager added: “We’re going to need him, and we’re going to need all of those guys. I’ll mix and match.” Marte’s imminent return adds a boost to the lineup, and Mendoza plans to start Marte rather than easing him back into batting order as a platoon option.

The 35-year old who turns 36 in October has been consistent with the Mets in his three years since signing a four-year, $78 million contract with New York before the 2022 season. The former two-time All-Star – including 2022 as a member of the Mets – was slashing: .278/.328/.416 with 68 hits (seven home runs, nine doubles, two triples), 30 RBI and 12 stolen bases in 266 plate appearances across 66 games this season prior to his IL stint.

Marte’s defensive decline in right field (-1.2 WAR in 2023, 1.3 WAR in 2024 up until this point) has been noted. JD Martinez is the primary designated hitter, and the outfield has been occupied by some combination of: Harrison Bader, Tyrone Taylor, and Jesse Winker, who General Manager David Stearns acquired from the Washington Nationals on July 28 prior to the Trade Deadline, giving the Mets another left-handed veteran presence in their lineup.

In addition to Marte, relief pitcher Dedniel Núñez is an additional reinforcement in an area of need and “on track” for the start of his rehab assignment soon.

"I feel like at times we're nibbling way too much, not attacking hitters, not trusting your stuff as a pitcher" Carlos Mendoza discusses the #Mets pitching woes and gives injury updates on Dedniel Nunez and Starling Marte pic.twitter.com/M1hVn9ZDm5 — New York Post Sports (@nypostsports) August 16, 2024

The 28-year old Núñez – 2-0, 2.43 ERA, 45 strikeouts in 33.1 innings this season – has been one of Mendoza’s most consistent bullpen arms before being placed on the 15-day IL (right pronator strain) on July 26 (retroactive to July 24). He threw a successful bullpen session Tuesday and faced live hitters Friday for the first time since the injury. The expectation is he may be back sooner than later.

Entering Saturday, August 17, the Mets are 63-59, one game behind the Atlanta Braves (64-58) for the final Wild Card playoff spot in the National League. A healthy Marte, and potentially healthy Núñez down the stretch, are healthy shots in the arm to an organization aiming to make the postseason for a second time in three seasons.

JOE CALABRESE

Joseph Calabrese is an avid New York sports fan who has previously made stops at and worked for major sports leagues and companies, including NBC Sports, CBS Sports and Bettor Sports Network. He is a huge Yankees fan and can be found on X: @JCalabrese1. He also co-hosts the "You Know I'm Right" podcast with fellow media member Nick Durst

Chinese laser-sensor maker Hesai awaits Pentagon notification on blacklist decision

Company initially deemed to have military ties in limbo over reported reversal as influential US lawmaker warns of ‘direct CCP surveillance’

A previous version of this article reported, incorrectly, that the judge presiding over the case had denied Hesai's motion for summary judgment. It has been revised to say that the judge will hear Hesai’s request on September 24.

American defence officials concluded that Hesai Group did not meet the “legal criteria for inclusion” in the blacklist, according to the Financial Times story on Tuesday.

However, at present the Pentagon “has not yet communicated this action to Hesai, nor have we seen any official announcement or confirmation from DoD on this matter”, a company representative told the Post in an emailed statement on Thursday.

The representative declined to comment on the FT report, instead referring to its inclusion in the blacklist in January as a “mistake”.

Two sources familiar with the matter said the DoD had likely not yet reached a final decision. The DoD has so far refused to comment, noting the matter is still in court.

A US district judge will hear Hesai’s request for a summary judgment on September 24.

US congressman John Moolenaar, Republican of Michigan and chair of the House select committee on China, described lidar as a “foundational technology of the future and one we cannot let our adversaries control”.

Some defence experts tracking Hesai’s case attributed the Pentagon’s current silence to bureaucratic hurdles and heightened internal scrutiny following the media leak.

“The DoD requires labyrinthine approvals and can be subject to all sorts of hold-ups due to ordinary bureaucratic delays,” according to Bill Drexel of the Centre for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank.

“That said, with the blowback from the announcement that Hesai may be removed from the blacklist, it seems likely that the decision is coming under some further scrutiny internally,” said Drexel.

Lidar remained “a very important strategic technology for defence and we can’t afford to get this wrong”, he added.

What to know about Jordan Chiles having to return her bronze medal

Alyssa Roenigk reports the latest on the IOC's ruling that Jordan Chiles must return the bronze medal she won in the Paris Olympics floor exercise. (1:46)

PARIS -- Two-time Olympian Jordan Chiles earned the first individual Olympic medal of her career six days ago, a bronze in the floor final. On Sunday, the International Olympic Committee said Chiles must return that medal, which will be reallocated to Romania's Ana Barbosu. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee plans to appeal the decision .

So, how'd we get here?

Chiles competed last in Monday's floor final and her initial score of 13.666 placed her fifth. Barbosu and her teammate, Sabrina Voinea, earned identical scores of 13.7, but Barbosu's higher execution score placed her ahead of Voinea. Barbosu began celebrating the bronze while Team USA head coach Cecile Landi filed an inquiry into Chiles' score.

Coaches may inquire into a gymnast's difficulty score, but not their execution score. Knowing Chiles was awarded one-tenth lower than her maximum D-score, Landi inquired and the judges accepted her inquiry, awarding Chiles an additional one-tenth, which elevated her score to 13.766 and put her in third place.

Chiles was awarded the bronze in a medal ceremony that has become one of the most iconic of these Games, as she and silver medalist Simone Biles bowed to Brazil's Rebeca Andrade when she stepped to the top of the podium to receive her gold.

The Romanian Gymnastics Federation then filed a complaint with the Court of Arbitration for Sport -- the independent body formed by the IOC to settle disputes like this -- over the way the inquiry was made.

What was the basis of the complaint?

Here's the thing: It had nothing to do with Chiles's performance or her score, really. The RGF argued that Landi filed the inquiry after the one-minute deadline to do so. To follow that reasoning, if Landi filed the inquiry even a few seconds late, the judges should not have accepted it and therefore would have had no opportunity to amend Chiles' score.

What did the CAS rule?

The court ruled Saturday that the inquiry submitted on Chiles' behalf "was raised after the conclusion of the one-minute deadline" and should not have been accepted. It reinstated Chiles' original score of 13.666, then moved the matter to the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG).

What was the response to the decision?

Chiles posted three broken heart emojis on her Instagram story Saturday and said she was taking a social media break for her mental health. Her teammates posted support for her. "What about the judges?" Sunisa Lee asked. "Don't punish the athlete for someone else's mistake," Jade Carey wrote on Instagram.

In a joint statement, the USOPC and USA Gymnastics said they were "devastated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling regarding women's floor exercise. The inquiry into the Difficulty Value of Jordan Chiles' floor exercise routine was filed in good faith and, we believed, in accordance with FIG rules to ensure accurate scoring."

What did the FIG decide?

Because of the CAS decision, the FIG officially amended the final ranking of the floor final and put Romania's Barbosu back in third, Voinea fourth and Chiles fifth.

What happens to Chiles' medal?

The FIG handed that decision off to the IOC, which makes rulings regarding medal allocations. In a statement, the committee said that following the CAS and FIG decisions, "the IOC will reallocate the bronze medal to Ana Barbosu (Romania). We are in touch with the [National Olympic Committee] of Romania to discuss the reallocation ceremony and with USOPC regarding the return of the bronze medal."

The USOPC said Sunday that it will appeal the decision. It is not asking Chiles to return the medal without a fight. "We firmly believe that Jordan rightfully earned the bronze medal, and there were critical errors in both the initial scoring by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) and the subsequent CAS appeal process that need to be addressed," the USOPC said in its statement. "We are committed to pursuing an appeal to ensure that Jordan Chiles receives the recognition she deserves."

Later in the day Sunday, USA Gymnastics put out a statement saying that it had submitted a letter and video evidence to the Court of Arbitration for Sport that they say shows that the inquiry submitted on Chiles behalf came within the 1-minute deadline.

However, on Monday USA Gymnastics out another statement saying: "USA Gymnastics was notified by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on Monday that their rules do not allow for an arbitral award to be reconsidered even when conclusive new evidence is presented. We are deeply disappointed by the notification and will continue to pursue every possible avenue and appeal process, including to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, to ensure the just scoring, placement, and medal award for Jordan."

Skip to Main Content
Skip to audio player to listen live

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

A verification code has been emailed to

What Walz — and the records — say about his military service as others criticized it

Tim Walz, right, and Gary Bloomberg at Camp Guernsey, 1992.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

In 1981, Tim Walz and his father traveled to the nearest Army National Guard enlistment officer to his hometown in Nebraska.

“We met up with a lieutenant who had to get off his tractor from early spring plowing,” Walz said in a 2018 interview with MPR News. “And we did the oath of enlistment right there on the edge of a field with the recruiter. And that led me on a 24-year journey.”

The Minnesota governor, and now running mate with Vice President Kamala Harris, has often talked about his service in the National Guard. Now others are talking about it too, and not always in glowing terms, especially when it comes to Walz’s stepping away from the Guard.

Harris called him a “patriot” in Philadelphia on Tuesday, the first rally the two held together.

Support local news

When breaking news happens, MPR News provides the context you need. Help us meet the significant demands of these newsgathering efforts.

“To his fellow veterans. He is Sergeant Major Walz,” Harris said, as the crowd cheered.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance took aim at the governor’s accounts of his service on the campaign trail, calling Walz’s decision to leave the National Guard when he did “shameful.”

Discover more The MPR News' Tim Walz archive
Be informed Minnesota Voter Guide from MPR News

Members of the National Guard train to fight in wars, and to respond to national security threats. They also are called up for state emergencies. The majority of guard members have full-time civilian jobs and serve part-time in the guard.

Walz served in Nebraska, Texas and Arkansas before moving to Minnesota in 1996. He was in the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery based in New Ulm.

He specialized in heavy artillery and had ribbons for proficiency in sharpshooting and hand grenades, according to military records MPR News obtained through an open records request.

During his service, he suffered hearing damage due to heavy artillery use . He later had surgery to address that.

His training missions included one near the Arctic Circle in northern Norway.

In 2003 he was deployed to Italy for nine months, providing support for the war in Afghanistan .

“[Our] responsibility was to provide support at these bases in the early parts of the war in 2003, where these troops in the active force went forward into the war zone,” Walz said. “And we went in and provided base security, provided training on the backside, because the regular force was deployed downrange.”

On May 15, 2005, Walz retired from the Guard. His separation record says he did so honorably.

Later that year, his battalion was deployed for the Iraq war.

The 1-125th Field Artillery “received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq on July 14, 2005. The official Department of the Army mobilization order was received on Aug. 14, 2005, and the unit mobilized on Oct. 12, 2005,” said Lt. Col. Ryan Rossman, Minnesota National Guard’s director of operations.

At the time of his retirement, Walz was 41 and wanted to run for Congress. He was elected to the 1st Congressional District seat the following year.

In the 2022 race for governor, Republican candidate Scott Jensen — flanked by veterans — pointedly questioned Walz’s decision to leave the Guard before the battalion’s Iraq deployment.

“In my eyes, today is the day that Tim Walz is indicted for lack of leadership and an unwillingness to do his duty, and Minnesota needs to know about it,” Jensen said.

Walz said in 2018 he believed he could make a difference as a voice for soldiers in Congress.

“I wouldn’t put myself as a hero, but 24 years of service commendations, rising to a rank that your listeners who are in the military know, you don’t get to bluff your way to that, you earn that and, and I’m certainly proud of that,” he said.

Allan Bonnifield served with Walz, whom he first met in 1999. In a 2018 interview with MPR News, Bonnifield said Walz debated whether he should focus on a run for Congress or stay in the National Guard.

“He weighed that decision to run for Congress very, very heavy,” Bonnifield said. “He loved the military, he loved the Guard, he loved the soldiers that he worked with, and making that decision was very tough for him. Especially knowing that we were going on another deployment to Iraq. He didn’t take that decision lightly at all.”

Vance, who criticized Walz’s record, served four years in the Marines. He was deployed to Iraq for six months in 2005 as a combat correspondent, or military journalist according to Task and Purpose, a publication that covers the military.

Bonnifield said Walz focused on veterans in Congress . Of the 85 bills Walz sponsored over his six terms, nearly half had to do with veterans’ issues.

“He worked on making it easier for Guard members struggling to get help and contact the right people for post traumatic stress help, for the suicidal thoughts, for just making things quicker and making it so people realized it is an actual problem, it’s not something that will just go away,” Bonnifield said.

There have also been questions raised by critics about two aspects of Walz’s retirement documents. First, his title at retirement, and second, a lack of a signature on his separation record.

Walz left the military at the rank of command sergeant major, one of the top for an enlisted soldier.

Personnel file records show that he was reduced in rank months after retiring, leaving him as a master sergeant for benefits purposes.

“[Walz] held multiple positions within field artillery such as firing battery chief, operations sergeant, first sergeant and culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion,” said Lt. Col. Kristen Augé, a public affairs officer with the Minnesota National Guard. “He retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.”

In the separation record for Walz, a signature box says “Soldier not available for signature.” The guard said that’s relatively routine for these documents.

“For members of the reserve components, who are not available for signature, using the regulatory statement of ‘not available to sign’ is common,” said Army Col. Ryan Cochran, the Minnesota National Guard’s director of manpower and personnel. “This statement is authorized and directed by both Army Regulations and National Guard Regulations to ensure the timely processing of administrative actions.”

MPR News politics editor Brian Bakst and former APM Reports correspondent Chris Haxel contributed reporting to this story.

Tim Walz is returning to his home state where there's a battle over a key Nebraska electoral vote
Vice presidential campaign pulls Gov. Tim Walz away from Minnesota
Gov. Tim Walz is Kamala Harris’ running mate. What happens now in Minnesota politics?

Latino Rights Group Breaks With Its History to Endorse Harris-Walz Ticket

Leaders of the group, known as LULAC, said members were stirred to make their first formal endorsement over concerns about the potential impact of another Trump presidency.

Share full article

Vice President Kamala Harris, wearing a dark suit, is smiling.

By Jazmine Ulloa

Reporting from Washington

Aug. 9, 2024

The League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the nation’s oldest Latino civil rights organizations, said on Friday that it supported Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the first formal endorsement of a presidential ticket in the group’s 95-year history.

Leaders of the group, known as LULAC, acknowledged that it had previously refrained from endorsing political candidates but said that members were stirred to action by concerns over the potential negative impact on Latinos if former President Donald J. Trump were elected again.

The endorsement was carried out through the group’s political action committee, the LULAC Adelante PAC, after internal conversations and a unanimous vote. Leaders said they decided to endorse Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz because they were better equipped to address the issues facing Latino communities.

“We can trust them to do what is right for our community and the country,” Domingo Garcia, the chairman of the PAC and a past LULAC president, said in a statement.

Latinos, a multiracial and multiethnic slice of the electorate that made up 10 percent of American voters in 2020, tend to vote Democratic.

But they have been at the center of a tug of war between Democrats and Republicans since Mr. Trump improved his standing with Latinos in 2020 compared with his 2016 campaign. As Mr. Trump and President Biden appeared to be headed for a rematch in the 2024 presidential election, a significant number of Latinos had been considering a third-party option .

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

Group decision making
Group Decision Making: The Handbook on Building Consensus
10 of the Most Effective Group Decision Making Techniques
Lesson:-26 GROUP DECISION-MAKING
Group Decision Making Techniques for Project Managers
Improving Group Decision-Making

COMMENTS

7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making
Bring a diverse group together. Appoint a devil's advocate. Collect opinions independently. Provide a safe space to speak up. Don't over-rely on experts. And share collective responsibility ...
What is Group Decision Making? Steps, Examples, & Pros/Cons
Group decision-making is a complex yet crucial process in any organizational setting. It involves several interconnected stages that navigate from identifying the core issue or opportunity to reflecting on the entire decision-making process for future improvements. ... Decisions about project scope, milestones, and task assignments are made ...
How to run an effective group decision making process
Group decision-making is the act of collectively making a decision as a group, often using voting techniques and discussions to arrive at a consensus or majority. While a group leader may still make a final decision in some scenarios, group decision making is defined by the fact that everyone in a group has some say in choosing from the option ...
10 Effective Group Decision-Making Techniques for Teams
1. Brainstorming sessions. Brainstorming is a group decision-making technique that embraces the spontaneous and collaborative generation of diverse ideas. In doing so, group members foster creative solutions and encourage the exploration of possibilities without the hindrance of biases.
Your Practical Guide to Group Decision Making
Step 6: Implement the decision. Once a decision is made, the group implements it. This involves creating a clear action plan outlining the steps needed to implement the decision, assigning tasks, and setting deadlines. Ensuring the necessary resources, such as budget, personnel, and tools, are available to execute the plan is crucial.
10.3 Group Decision Making
10.3 Group Decision Making. Explain factors that can lead to process gain in group versus individual decision making. Explain how groupthink can harm effective group decision making. Outline the ways that lack of information sharing can reduced decision-making quality in group contexts. Explain why brainstorming can often be counterproductive ...
2.6 Group Decision-Making
Summary of Techniques That May Improve Group Decision-Making; Type of Decision. Technique. Benefit. Group decisions. Have diverse members in the group. Improves quality: generates more options, reduces bias. Assign a devil's advocate. Improves quality: reduces groupthink. Encourage everyone to speak up and contribute.
Group Decision Making
The seven-step decision-making model presented below offers an effective structure for choosing an appropriate course of action for a particular task or project. It can also be an effective method for dealing with a problem or interpersonal conflict that arises within the group. Seven-step decision-making model.
Group Decision Making: 4 Techniques You Should Know
Group Decision Making: Being Part of the Team. Group decision-making goes hand in hand with the 5 step decision-making process. These tools allow people to look at a problem from all sides and come up with a decision that everyone can follow. By promoting group decision-making, businesses will see greater unity within their organization.
6 strategies to make group decisions quickly
5 tips for making good group decisions. Making good group decisions is important, especially when working with cross-functional teams. To ensure that you include everyone's opinions, use these tips: Clarify the goal and category of the decision. Making a group decision can be challenging if you're working cross-functionally.
Group Decision-Making Process: Key Methods for Better Outcomes
Groupthink: Group members may feel pressured to conform to the opinions of others, leading to a lack of critical thinking and evaluation of alternative solutions.; Risky Shift: Groups may sometimes make riskier decisions than individuals, as group members may feel less personally responsible for the outcome.; Time-Consuming: Group decision-making can take longer than individual decision-making ...
Group Decision Making Process: Tools & Techniques for ...
Team performance and work outcomes can be measured. Decision-making. Group members discuss, decide, and delegate. Team members discuss, decide, and do the work. The overall effectiveness of group decision-making depends on many factors. For example, time constraints or any underlying conflicts can impact the group decision-making outcomes.
Group decision-making: 9 frameworks for success
Explore these frameworks and choose the one that best fits the type of decision your team needs to make. 1. Brainstorming ideas and solutions. Brainstorming sessions are something that everyone has probably done at least once — and for good reason. They're an easy and accessible way to start coming up with ideas.
Decision-Making in Groups
This chapter emphasizes the importance of clear assignment of roles and of delegating, discusses pitfalls in group decision-making, and ends by offering tools for collective decisions when the team works remotely. Download chapter PDF. It is said that two heads are better than one, meaning that a group thinks better and makes wiser decisions ...
How to Establish an Effective Group Decision-Making Process
5. Create a decision log. You may create a decision log to communicate and document each step in the decision-making process. This can help build trust among members because it makes the process more transparent. Ensure the log outlines the group's decision and information about how it concluded.
14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups
Step 2: Analyze the Problem. During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group's relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the "what" related to the problem, this step focuses on the "why.". At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty.
Group decision-making
Group decision-making (also known as collaborative decision-making or collective 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 and social group processes such as social influence contribute ...
Group Decision-Making: Methods of Reaching Decisions
Consensus. In consensus decision-making, group members reach a resolution which all of the members can support as being acceptable as a means of accomplishing some mutual goal even though it may not be the preferred choice for everyone. In common use, "consensus" can range in meaning from unanimity to a simple majority vote.
Best methods for making group decisions
Below are four types of options with a summary of the strengths, weaknesses and consequences of each. 1. Decision by authority. This method can be described as "one person decides." This might mean assigning the decision to the most expert person or to a person who decides after listening to the group discuss the problem.
Making better decisions in groups
A common strategy for combining individual opinions into a group decision is to let each member vote on the available options and select the option favoured by the majority [74,75]. ... If the information turns out to be unreliable, then the assignment of areas of expertise is revised, and the weight of the information source is adjusted. ...
Using groups for decision-making: the key risks and challenges for
x) Competing goals & social loafing: As humans have different goals and interests, it is natural that some members in a group may prioritise what suits them personally rather than making a good group decision. Ensuring that the group does not damage a member's personal status or reputation is an example of a common concern.
17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making
9. People in a group can decide to "go with the flow.". One of the most significant problems with the group decision-making process is that team members can decide that their top priority is to avoid conflict instead of fighting for their ideas. This disadvantage can quickly lead to a problem that is call "group think.".
Sending emails to users to complete Assignments
You can use the optional Guest account within Decisions for users to access Designer Elements, such as Flows or Assignments, without having to have a specified Account. Typically, you can send an email containing an Assignment URL link which when clicked will open the associated Assignment Form.
Mets Make a Decision on Starling Marte; Star Reliever Nearing Rehab
Jun 19, 2024; Arlington, Texas, USA; New York Mets right fielder Starling Marte (6) hits an rbi double during the fourth inning against the Texas Rangers at Globe Life Field.
With FDA decision looming, bipartisan group of lawmakers urge ...
In a show of bipartisanship, 80 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have united in letters urging President Joe Biden and the US Food and Drug Administration to further consider ...
Chinese sensor maker Hesai awaits Pentagon news on blacklist decision
A previous version of this article reported, incorrectly, that the judge presiding over the case had denied Hesai's motion for summary judgment. It has been revised to say that the judge will hear ...
Answering the big questions about Jordan Chiles having to return her
The FIG handed that decision off to the IOC, which makes rulings regarding medal allocations. In a statement, the committee said that following the CAS and FIG decisions, "the IOC will reallocate ...
DNC protest groups' legal battle with Chicago continues
The group says they want a permanent and immediate cease-fire to the war in Gaza, as well as an end to U.S. military aid to Israel. And while this is an organized protest, that doesn't mean there won't be outside agitators, especially since protesters with opposing views will be present at next week's demonstrations.
What Walz
Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance took aim at the governor's accounts of his service on the campaign trail, calling Walz's decision to leave the National Guard when he did ...
LULAC Endorses Harris-Walz Ticket, Breaking With Its History
Latino Rights Group Breaks With Its History to Endorse Harris-Walz Ticket. Leaders of the group, known as LULAC, said members were stirred to make their first formal endorsement over concerns ...

7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making

Partner Center

Group Decision Making: Definition, Features, Steps, Methods, Examples, and Pros/Cons

What is Group Decision Making?

Characteristics of Group Decision-Making

Collective Responsibility

Diverse Perspectives

Interactive Process

Consensus Building

Influenced by Social Dynamics

Steps in Group Decision Making Process

Identifying the Problem or Opportunity

Generating Alternatives

Evaluating Alternatives

Decision Making

Implementing the Decision

Monitoring and Evaluating

Closure and Reflection

Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

Advantages:

Disadvantages:

Methods of Group Decision Making

Brainstorming

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

Delphi Technique

Consensus Decision-Making

Examples of Group Decision Making

Strategic Planning Meetings

Project Team Decision-Making

Product Development Committees

Cross-functional Problem-Solving Groups

Human Resources Hiring Panels

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Quick Links

Support Links

How to run an effective group decision making process

Design your next session with SessionLab

Recommended Articles

What is group decision-making?

What are the advantages of group decision making?

What are the disadvantages of group decision making?

How to choose a decision making process

What decision-making processes can you use?

Person-in-charge deciding with consultation

Person-in-charge deciding without consultation

Majority vote

Randomization

How to your decision-making process explicit?

Getting to convergence: decision making as part of a longer process

Getting to convergence with dot voting

Mark clearly when a decision has been taken – Is this now decided?

How to define when a group decision is made

Give decisions a time limit – When will we check on this decision?

How to check on a group decision

In closing

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

People Management

Start using ClickUp today

What is Group Decision-Making?

10 Effective Group Decision-Making Techniques

Harmonize Your Group Decision-Making Process

Receive the latest WriteClick Newsletter updates.

Your Practical Guide to Group Decision Making

What is Group Decision Making

Group Decision Making Process

Step 1: Identify the problem as a Group

Step 2: Gather information with your group

Step 3: Generate options as a group

Step 4: Evaluate options with your group

Step 5: Choose the best option with your group

Step 6: Implement the decision

Step 7: Review the decision as a group

Group Decision Making Techniques

Brainstorming

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

Role-playing

Decision tree analysis

Delphi method

Multi-voting