Group decision-making

src: i.ytimg.com

Group decision making (also known as collaborative decision-making ) is a situation faced when individuals collectively make choices from alternatives before them. This decision is then no longer associated with the individual who is a member of the group. This is because all the individuals and processes of social groups such as social influences contribute to results. Decisions made by groups often differ from those made by individuals. Group polarization is a clear example: groups tend to make decisions more extreme than their individual group of individuals, toward individual tendencies.

There is much debate as to whether these differences result in better or worse decisions. According to the idea of â€‹â€‹synergy, decisions that are made collectively tend to be more effective than decisions made by one individual. However, there are also examples where decisions made by the group are flawed, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, an incident in which the group's model thinks the decision-making group is based.

Factors that influence the behavior of other social groups also influence group decisions. For example, high groups in cohesion, in combination with other preliminary conditions (eg ideological homogeneity and insulation of different opinions) have been noted to have a negative effect on group decision making and hence on group effectiveness. Moreover, when individuals make decisions as part of a group, there is a tendency to show biases against information-sharing discussions (ie shared information bias), as opposed to non-shared information.

Video Group decision-making

In psychology

The social identity approach shows a more general approach to group decision making than the popular groupfink model, which is a narrow view on situations where group and other decision making have flaws. Social identity analysis shows that changes that occur during collective decision-making are part of a rational psychological process that builds the essence of a group in a psychologically efficient way, based on the social reality experienced by group members and has the potential to have a positive impact on society.

Maps Group decision-making

Formal system

Consensus decision making: Trying to avoid "winners" and "losers". Consensus requires that the majority agree on the action given, but that minorities agree to follow the action. In other words, if a minority defies the course of action, consensus requires that action be changed to remove unpleasant features.

Votes based method: The voting range allows each member to get one or more of the available options. A selection with the highest average is selected. This method has been experimentally proven to result in the lowest Bayesian remorse among the general voting methods, even when the voters are strategic.; The majority need support from over 50% of group members. Thus, the bar to act is lower than unanimous and a group of "losers" is implied by this rule.; Plurality, in which the largest block in the group decides, even if it does not reach a majority.

The Delphi method: This method is a structured communication technique for a group, originally developed for collaborative estimates but also used for policy making.; Methods that depend on the use of a form called "dotmocracy sheets" to allow large groups to brainstorm collectively and recognize agreement on some unlimited ideas they have written.

Group Conflict? Try Principle-Based Decision-Making - Meeteor

src: blog.meeteor.com

Decision making in social settings

Group decision-making is sometimes examined separately as a process and outcome. Process refers to group interaction. Some relevant ideas include a coalition among participants as well as influence and persuasion. Political use is often judged negatively, but it is a useful way to approach problems when preferences among actors are in conflict, when dependencies are unavoidable, when there is no super-ordinate authority, and when the technical or scientific benefits are ambiguous.

In addition to the various processes involved in decision making, group decision support systems (GDSSs) may have different decision rules. The decision rule is the GDSS protocol that groups use to choose between scenario planning alternatives.

GatheringÃƒ,: Involve all participants who recognize their own needs and opinions and tend towards a problem-solving approach where as many as possible needs and opinions can be met. This allows for some results and does not require approval from several others to act.
Subcommittee: Engage assigning responsibilities for evaluation of decisions for sub-sets of larger groups, which then return to larger groups with recommendations for action. Using sub-committees is more common in larger government groups, such as legislatures. Sometimes subcommittees are among the people most affected by decisions, although at times it is useful for larger groups to have sub-committees that involve more neutral participants.
Participatory: Each participant has a voice that is directly proportional to the level that a particular decision will affect the individual. Those who are unaffected by the decision will not have a voice and those who are exclusively influenced by the decision will say fully. Likewise, those most affected will have the most votes, while the least affected will say the least.

Plurality and dictatorship is less desirable as a decision rule because they do not require broader group involvement to make choices. As such, they do not generate commitment to the chosen action. Lack of commitment from individuals within a group can be a problem during the implementation phase of a decision.

There is no perfect decision rule. Depending on how the rules are applied in practice and situations, all of these can lead to situations where no decisions are made, or in situations where decisions are made inconsistently with each other over time.

Social decision scheme

Sometimes, groups may have established and set clear standards for making decisions, such as rules and statutes. However, it often happens that the decision-making process is less formal, and perhaps even implicitly accepted. Social decision schemes are methods used by groups to combine individual responses to produce single group decisions. There are a number of these schemes, but the following are the most common:

Delegate: Individuals, subgroups, or external parties make decisions on behalf of the group. For example, in "authority schemes", leaders make decisions or, in oligarchy, coalitions of prominent figures make decisions.
Average: Each member of the group makes their own personal and independent decisions and everything is then "averaged" to produce a decision.
Plurality: Group members vote on their preferences, both privately and publicly. This sound is then used to choose a decision, either with a simple majority, a supermarket or a more or less complicated voting system.
Unanimity: A consensus scheme in which the group discusses the issue until it reaches a unanimous agreement. It is this decision rule that determines decision-making for most judges.
Shuffle: This group leaves the option of chance. For example, choose a number between 1 and 10 or flip a coin.

There are strengths and weaknesses to each of these social decision schemes. Delegation saves time and is a good method for less important decisions, but neglected members may react negatively. The average response will cancel out extreme opinions, but the final decision may disappoint many members. Pluralism is the most consistent scheme when superior decisions are being made, and this involves little effort. Voting, however, can cause members to feel alienated when they lose a close voice, or internal politics, or to adjust to other opinions. Consensus schemes involve deeper members, and tend to lead to a high level of commitment. However, it may be difficult for the group to reach such a decision.

Model normative decision-making

The Group has many advantages and disadvantages when making decisions. Groups, by definition, consist of two or more persons, and for this reason naturally have access to more information and have greater capacity to process this information. However, they also present a number of obligations for decision-making, such as requiring more time to make choices and with consequences rushing to a low quality agreement to be on time. Some problems are also so simple that group decision-making processes lead to too many cooks in the kitchen: for such trivial problems, having the group make excessive decisions and can lead to failure. Because the group offers both advantages and disadvantages in making decisions, Victor Vroom develops a normative model of decision making that suggests different decision-making methods should be chosen depending on the situation. In this model, Vroom identifies five different decision-making processes.

Decide: The group leader uses other group members as a source of information, but makes the final decision independently and does not explain to group members why he/she needs the information.
Consult (individuals) Ãƒ,: The leader speaks to each group member alone and never consults with group meetings. S/he then makes the final decision in light of the information obtained in this way.
Consult (group) Ãƒ,: Groups and leaders meet and he consults with the whole group at once, asks for opinions and information, then makes a decision.
Facilitate: Leaders take a cooperative holistic approach, collaborating with the group as a whole as they work toward integrated and consensual decisions. Leaders are non-directive and never impose specific solutions on groups. In this case, the final decision is made by the group, not by the leader.
Delegate: The leader takes a backward approach, handing the problem to the group. Leaders support, but allow groups to make decisions without their direct collaboration.

Group Decision Support - Definitive Business Solutions

src: definitiveinc.com

Decision support system

The idea of â€‹â€‹using a computerized support system was discussed by James Reason under the heading of a smart decision support system in his work on the topic of human error. James Reason notes that events after The Three Mile's accident have not inspired great confidence in the efficacy of some of these methods. In the Davis-Besse accident, for example, both systems display independent security parameters run out of action before and during the event.

Decision-making software is essential for autonomous robots and for various forms of active decision support for industry operators, designers and managers.

Due to the many considerations involved in many decisions, computer-based decision support systems (DSS) have been developed to assist decision-makers in considering the implications of different ways of thinking. They can help reduce the risk of human error. A DSS that tries to manifest some human cognitive decision function is called Intelligent Decision Support Systems (IDSS). On the other hand, an active and intelligent DSS is an essential tool for the design of complex engineering systems and the management of large technology and business projects.

3 Decision-Making Models That You Need to Know - Meeteor

src: blog.meeteor.com

Group discussion talk

Groups have a greater source of information and motivation, and therefore have the potential to outperform individuals. But they do not always reach this potential. Groups often lack good communication skills. On the sender side, this means group members may lack the necessary skills to express themselves clearly. On the receiving end, this means miscommunication can result from the limitations of information processing and the wrong listening habits of humans. In cases where an individual controls the group it can prevent others from contributing significantly.

It is also the case that groups sometimes use discussions to avoid rather than make decisions. Avoidance tactics include the following:

Delay: Replace high priority tasks with lower priority tasks. Groups delaying decisions rather than studying alternatives and discussing their relative merits.
BolsteringÃƒ,: Groups can quickly or arbitrarily make decisions without thinking things through to completion. They then support their decision by exaggerating the beneficial consequences of the decision and minimizing the importance of unfortunate consequences.
Deny responsibility: Groups delegate decisions to subcommittees or spread accountability throughout the group, thus avoiding responsibility.
Muddling throughÃƒ,: This group addresses the problem by considering only a very narrow range of alternatives that differ only slightly from the options available.
"Satisficing" Ãƒ,: The combination of the words "satisfy" and "enough". Members receive low-risk and easy solutions rather than finding the best solution.
TrivializationÃƒ,: The group will avoid dealing with bigger issues by focusing on minor issues.

Two basic "laws" that groups often adhere to:

Parkinson's Law: "The task will expand to fill the available time for completion."
The law of futility: "The amount of time the group spends on discussing a problem will be inversely related to the consequences of the problem."
(For example, a committee discusses spending of $ 20 million for 3 minutes and one for $ 500 for 15 minutes.)

Failure to share information: Research using hidden profile assignments indicates that lack of information sharing is a common problem in group decision making. This happens when certain group members have information unknown to all members in the group. If its members combine all of their information, they will be more likely to make optimal decisions. But if people do not share all of their information, the group can make sub-optimal decisions. Stasser and Titus have shown that partial sharing of information can lead to wrong decisions. And Lu and Yuan found that groups were eight times more likely to answer the problem correctly when all group members had all the information than when some information was only known to members of the selected group.

src: s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com

Cognitive restrictions and subsequent errors

Individuals in group decision-making settings often function under substantial cognitive demands. As a result, cognitive and motivational biases can often influence group decision making negatively. According to Forsyth, there are three categories of potential bias that can make the group a victim when involved in decision making:

"Sins of commission"

Abuse, abuse, and/or use of inappropriate information, including:

Trust belief: A group uses information in their decision making that has been deemed inaccurate.
Sunk Bias cost: A group remains committed to a given plan mainly because of the investments already made in the plan, regardless of how inefficient and/or ineffective it is.
Extra-evidence bias: Groups that choose to use some information even though are told that it should be ignored.
visible bias: Group members excessively estimate the accuracy and/or relevance of their previous knowledge about the results provided.

Group decision-making

Selasa, 05 Juni 2018