Either of these extreme behaviors can lengthen the decision making process...
One of the advantages to treating decision making as a group process is that individual biases can be counteracted by the presence of multiple voices and perspectives.
But while groups offer different viewpoints, they need guidance to be productive. Your challenge is to manage the group decision-making process. Otherwise, you may find yourself confronted with one of the following extremes.
Excessive group harmony. Excessive group harmony occurs when individuals want to be accepted in a group or they lack inters tint he process. When people strive too hard to be accepted in the group, they may fall victim to groupthink. With groupthink, participants’ desire for agreement overrides their motivation to evaluate alternative options. In this situation, people tend to withhold their opinions, especially if their views differ from those of the group leader. They make little effort to obtain new information to support their initial preferences.. They may spend a lot of time inquiring about what others in the group want so that the solution they reach will make everyone happy.
Excessive group harmony can also stem from lack of interest: participants have not interest in the process or do not feel empowered. If the group feels that the leader has already made the decision, they may go along with it, refuse to participate entirely, or accept the first reasonable alternative that is proposed in an effort to end the process.
Excessive individualism. Excessive individualism is at the opposite end of the spectrum from excessive group harmony. In this situation, individuals engage in aggressive advocacy, placing stakes in the ground and relentlessly arguing their positions. They disregard the opinions of other group members and fail to consider the common good.
Either of these extreme behaviors can lengthen the decision making process and interfere with the team’s efforts to make good choices.
ACTION POINT: Your job as a manager is to keep your decision-making group on track so it does not head toward either of these extremes.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Recognizing Obstacles
We tend to subconsciously decide what to do before figuring out why we want to do it.
Decision making is made difficult by common, often unconscious, obstacles that frequently inhibit a decision maker’s ability to determine the optimal choice. Such obstacles include cognitive biases and unproductive group dynamics. While it is almost impossible to eliminate these obstacles, recognizing them in yourself and in the members of your group will help you make more objective decisions.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
Here are some common examples of cognitive biases—distortions or preconceived notions—that people encounter when making decisions.
Bias toward the familiar and toward past successes. We tend to base our decisions on events and information that are familiar to us. For example, Sam, a brand manager, remembers his launch of a new product in a territory three years ago; it was his first big marketing success. He also vaguely remembers that a similar launch strategy was unsuccessful in number of other territories. Because his memories of the successful launch are so vivid, he emphasizes this experience and discounts the evidences of the unsuccessful launches elsewhere. When Sam tries to extend a new brand into another market, his efforts fail. While the strategy used for the first launch may have been a good starting point, his reliance on prior success led to incorrect assumptions about other markets.
Bias toward accepting assumptions at face value. We are generally overconfident in our assumptions and therefore generate too few alternatives. For example Ben purchases a software package offered by the larges vendor without collecting competitive bids. He assumes that the because the package works for other users in the same industry, it will work for him. He fails to investigate other software packages that might better meet his needs.
Bias toward the status quo. We have a tendency to resist major deviations from the status quo. For example, managers at BigCo are familiar with how to use a particular computer program and resist using an alternative, event though their program is outdated. Their resistance is driven more by their reluctance to learn something new than by the quality of the system itself.
Bias toward confirming our opinion. Once we form an opinion, we typically seek out information that supports our viewpoint and ignore the facts that may challenge it. For example, Dinah searches the Internet to find data supporting her preference for focus groups in market research, but she does not stop to read information that supports other approaches.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
How do you prevent these biases from adversely affecting your decision-making ability?
ACTION POINT: Recognize cognitive bias and ensure that contrarian, diverse voices get introduced into the discussion.
Decision making is made difficult by common, often unconscious, obstacles that frequently inhibit a decision maker’s ability to determine the optimal choice. Such obstacles include cognitive biases and unproductive group dynamics. While it is almost impossible to eliminate these obstacles, recognizing them in yourself and in the members of your group will help you make more objective decisions.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
Here are some common examples of cognitive biases—distortions or preconceived notions—that people encounter when making decisions.
Bias toward the familiar and toward past successes. We tend to base our decisions on events and information that are familiar to us. For example, Sam, a brand manager, remembers his launch of a new product in a territory three years ago; it was his first big marketing success. He also vaguely remembers that a similar launch strategy was unsuccessful in number of other territories. Because his memories of the successful launch are so vivid, he emphasizes this experience and discounts the evidences of the unsuccessful launches elsewhere. When Sam tries to extend a new brand into another market, his efforts fail. While the strategy used for the first launch may have been a good starting point, his reliance on prior success led to incorrect assumptions about other markets.
Bias toward accepting assumptions at face value. We are generally overconfident in our assumptions and therefore generate too few alternatives. For example Ben purchases a software package offered by the larges vendor without collecting competitive bids. He assumes that the because the package works for other users in the same industry, it will work for him. He fails to investigate other software packages that might better meet his needs.
Bias toward the status quo. We have a tendency to resist major deviations from the status quo. For example, managers at BigCo are familiar with how to use a particular computer program and resist using an alternative, event though their program is outdated. Their resistance is driven more by their reluctance to learn something new than by the quality of the system itself.
Bias toward confirming our opinion. Once we form an opinion, we typically seek out information that supports our viewpoint and ignore the facts that may challenge it. For example, Dinah searches the Internet to find data supporting her preference for focus groups in market research, but she does not stop to read information that supports other approaches.
COGNITIVE BIAS – A system of error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.
How do you prevent these biases from adversely affecting your decision-making ability?
ACTION POINT: Recognize cognitive bias and ensure that contrarian, diverse voices get introduced into the discussion.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Fostering the Right Climate II
A more realistic and effective technique for arriving at a decision is one that balances advocacy with inquiry.
In a perfect world, decisions would be made using an inquiry approach—an open process in which individuals ask probing questions, explore different points of view, and identify a wide range of options with the goal of reaching a decision that the group creates and owns collectively. In an inquiry mode, individuals set aside their personal opinions or preferences in order to arrive at a decision that is best for the group or organization.
The table “Approaches to decision making’ illustrates the advocacy approach versus the inquiry approach to decision making.
__________________________________________________________________
Approaches to decision making
Advocacy Inquiry
__________________________________________________________________
Concept of decision making A contest Collaborative problem
Solving
__________________________________________________________________
Purpose of discussion Persuasion and Testing and evaluation
Lobbying
__________________________________________________________________
Participants role Spokespeople Critical Thinkers
__________________________________________________________________
Patters of Behavior Strive to persuade Present balanced
arguments
Defend your Remains open to
Position alternatives
Downplay Accept constructive
weaknesses criticism
__________________________________________________________________
Minority views Discouraged or Cultivated and valued
dismissed
__________________________________________________________________
The outcome Winners and losers Collective ownership
While inquiry is an idea, it is seldom met in practice. It is extremely difficult for individuals to discuss ideas or issues without expressing their opinions. A more realistic and effective technique for arriving at a decision is one that balances advocacy with inquiry. Group members leave their personal agendas behind and enter the meeting with the intention of acting as unbiased participants. They may advocate for apposition they feel strongly about, but they also inquire into other viewpoints and consider alternatives. They7 understand that the goal is to find the best solution for the group as a whole, even if it means that some individuals in the group might be negatively affected by the decision. Generally, in sessions that balance advocacy with inquiry, people share information freely and consider multiple alternatives.
ACTION POINT: Balance advocacy and inquiry when making group decisions.
In a perfect world, decisions would be made using an inquiry approach—an open process in which individuals ask probing questions, explore different points of view, and identify a wide range of options with the goal of reaching a decision that the group creates and owns collectively. In an inquiry mode, individuals set aside their personal opinions or preferences in order to arrive at a decision that is best for the group or organization.
The table “Approaches to decision making’ illustrates the advocacy approach versus the inquiry approach to decision making.
__________________________________________________________________
Approaches to decision making
Advocacy Inquiry
__________________________________________________________________
Concept of decision making A contest Collaborative problem
Solving
__________________________________________________________________
Purpose of discussion Persuasion and Testing and evaluation
Lobbying
__________________________________________________________________
Participants role Spokespeople Critical Thinkers
__________________________________________________________________
Patters of Behavior Strive to persuade Present balanced
arguments
Defend your Remains open to
Position alternatives
Downplay Accept constructive
weaknesses criticism
__________________________________________________________________
Minority views Discouraged or Cultivated and valued
dismissed
__________________________________________________________________
The outcome Winners and losers Collective ownership
While inquiry is an idea, it is seldom met in practice. It is extremely difficult for individuals to discuss ideas or issues without expressing their opinions. A more realistic and effective technique for arriving at a decision is one that balances advocacy with inquiry. Group members leave their personal agendas behind and enter the meeting with the intention of acting as unbiased participants. They may advocate for apposition they feel strongly about, but they also inquire into other viewpoints and consider alternatives. They7 understand that the goal is to find the best solution for the group as a whole, even if it means that some individuals in the group might be negatively affected by the decision. Generally, in sessions that balance advocacy with inquiry, people share information freely and consider multiple alternatives.
ACTION POINT: Balance advocacy and inquiry when making group decisions.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fostering the Right Climate
In advocacy situations, people tend to offer only the information that supports their case and omit details that might weaken it.
To help your group generate creative solutions to problems and evaluate them critically, choose diverse settings for your meetings. Such settings might include conference rooms that you don’t typically work in, off-site locations, or a familiar location with the furniture rearranged to facilitate face-to-face discussion. When people are removed from traditional settings they tend to speak more freely because they feel less constrained by office hierarchies.
Consider the following scenario: A manager at a software development company has been charged with assigning limited resources to the firm’s current projects. The manager calls a meeting with all of the project leaders to discuss how the resources will be allocated. The discussion quickly turns into an argument. Each project leader advocates for his or her project. The debate gets heated as the conversation goes around in circles, and each project manager decides to assign the limited resources to three projects. The project managers leave the meeting exhausted and frustrated.
What went wrong? The manager did not manage the decision making process effectively, and the meeting deteriorated into an advocacy mode. The project leaders viewed the meeting as a competition. They advocated for their positions without considering the needs of other departments or the company as a whole. In advocacy situations, people tend to offer only the information that supports their case and omit details that might weaken it. As a result, the discussion can quickly deteriorate into personal attacks, giving rise to negative emotions.
ACTION POINT: Create an open atmosphere of ideas for effective meetings.
To help your group generate creative solutions to problems and evaluate them critically, choose diverse settings for your meetings. Such settings might include conference rooms that you don’t typically work in, off-site locations, or a familiar location with the furniture rearranged to facilitate face-to-face discussion. When people are removed from traditional settings they tend to speak more freely because they feel less constrained by office hierarchies.
Consider the following scenario: A manager at a software development company has been charged with assigning limited resources to the firm’s current projects. The manager calls a meeting with all of the project leaders to discuss how the resources will be allocated. The discussion quickly turns into an argument. Each project leader advocates for his or her project. The debate gets heated as the conversation goes around in circles, and each project manager decides to assign the limited resources to three projects. The project managers leave the meeting exhausted and frustrated.
What went wrong? The manager did not manage the decision making process effectively, and the meeting deteriorated into an advocacy mode. The project leaders viewed the meeting as a competition. They advocated for their positions without considering the needs of other departments or the company as a whole. In advocacy situations, people tend to offer only the information that supports their case and omit details that might weaken it. As a result, the discussion can quickly deteriorate into personal attacks, giving rise to negative emotions.
ACTION POINT: Create an open atmosphere of ideas for effective meetings.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Selecting a Decision-Making Approach
The spectrum of group decision-making approaches includes four general types:
Once you’ve selected the participants, determine what decision-making approach you will take. The group you assemble needs to understand up front the process it will follow and how the final decision will be made. The spectrum of group decision-making approaches includes four general types:
Consensus. All team member meet together to discuss the proposal openly and strive to reach agreement, with everyone accepting the final decision.
Majority. The group votes and the majority rules. The team leader may elect to break a tie, if necessary.
Qualified consensus. The team tries to reach a collective agreement, but if it is unable to do so, the team agrees that the team leader makes the decision.
Directive leadership. The leader makes the decision and then informs the group of the decision that was made. A crisis or sudden unexpected emergency is a classic example of when this approach might be necessary.
These approaches, with the exception of directive leadership, vary in the extent that they empower the participants and create a sense of responsibility within the group. Be aware, however, that regardless of approach, when a group is trying to find areas agreement, it may avoid exploring minority viewpoints.
ACTION POINT: Encourage exploration of ideas, when faced with making a decision no matter what approach you will take to make the decision.
Once you’ve selected the participants, determine what decision-making approach you will take. The group you assemble needs to understand up front the process it will follow and how the final decision will be made. The spectrum of group decision-making approaches includes four general types:
Consensus. All team member meet together to discuss the proposal openly and strive to reach agreement, with everyone accepting the final decision.
Majority. The group votes and the majority rules. The team leader may elect to break a tie, if necessary.
Qualified consensus. The team tries to reach a collective agreement, but if it is unable to do so, the team agrees that the team leader makes the decision.
Directive leadership. The leader makes the decision and then informs the group of the decision that was made. A crisis or sudden unexpected emergency is a classic example of when this approach might be necessary.
These approaches, with the exception of directive leadership, vary in the extent that they empower the participants and create a sense of responsibility within the group. Be aware, however, that regardless of approach, when a group is trying to find areas agreement, it may avoid exploring minority viewpoints.
ACTION POINT: Encourage exploration of ideas, when faced with making a decision no matter what approach you will take to make the decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
