Groups In Organizations

Group behaviour in organisations.

group decision making strategies and pitfalls.

As a rule, decision-making processes are at management level, and decisions are fed downwards through the organisation's structure. Where group decisions are made, these may be democratic, autocratic or by consensus.

Autocratic decision making is the simplest and most straightforward strategy. It is the process by which the group leader makes the decision alone, using only the information that the leader possesses. The major advantage is that it is fast. However, because the decision is made based only on what s/he knows, the quality of the decision may suffer. An example could be the selection of a new computer package for a company. A variation on the strict autocratic decision making approach occurs when the leader solicits information from group members to assist in reaching a decision, but still holds the final say. This is sometimes referred to as consultative decision making.

Democratic decision making is a different strategy in which all group members are allowed to discuss the decision and then vote on a particular course of action. Typically, the outcome is based on a majority rule. One advantage of this approach is that decisions are made using the pooled knowledge and experience of group members. Moreover, a greater number of alternatives may be considered. Also, because group members have a role in the process, they are more likely to follow the chosen course.

The most obvious drawback to democratic decision making is that it is time-consuming. Because it encourages conflict, it can also be inefficient. Finally, although it can result in a satisfied majority, there may be a disgruntled minority who resists its implementation.

A strategy that overcomes some of the weaknesses of democratic decision making is to make decisions based on consensus. In this process, all group members, without exception, have agreed on the chosen course of action. Because it is very time-consuming, this method is only used for very important decisions. For example, juries use this strategy because the decision taken affects the future freedom of the accused. Some company executive boards may strive for consensus when taking major decisions about changes in direction of the organisation or in organisational structure or company policy. As would be expected, the outcome of consensus decision making is usually a high-quality, highly critiqued decision, backed by all members of the group. The obvious drawback is the tremendous amount of time it may take a group to reach consensus, and in some cases it may not be possible (as in the example of a "hung" jury).

Effectiveness of Group decision making

In recent years, organisations have increasingly made use of group decision making processes. Partly this is due to the belief in its inherent advantages over individual decision making. However, it can have drawbacks and the key is to know not only how group-made decisions can be more effective than those made by individuals, but also when group decision making is superior.

Advantages Disadvantages

Works from a broad knowledge base Slow (can be a problem in crisis sits)

Decision is accepted by members Creates intragroup conflict

Decision is highly critiqued Potential for groupthink and

group polarisation

Aspects of the problem can be Certain members, such as leaders,

Divided among members may dominate the process

Do groups make better decisions than individuals? Research does give the edge to group decision making, on the average. The average group will make a higher-quality decision than the average individual. However, some research indicates that the best decision making individual - one who possesses all the information needed to make a high-quality decision - will be able to perform as well as or better than a group.

Perhaps the strongest argument for group decision making is that it leads to increased member satisfaction and greater member commitment to the course of action decided upon. But what happens when the decision is a bad one? Research indicates that when this happens, members may increase their commitment to the poor decision (Bazerman, Guiliano & Appleman, 1984). If the poor decision was made by an individual, group members will not be as committed and may be more likely to see its faults and try another course of action.

In summary, although group decision making has certain limitations, it offers many advantages over individual decision making, particularly in improving the quality of decisions and in increasing the commitment to the decisions once they are made.

Group decision making gone wrong: Groupthink and Group polarisation.

Although group decision making may be increasingly the preferred process for making important decisions, psychologists have, however, discovered two situations in which the usual advantages may not emerge:

ii. sources and management of group conflict

Conflict can occur within or between groups and is, unfortunately, a fact of everyday life. Conflict is destructive at its worst. The productivity of the company inevitably decreases and it is essential that organisations are aware of the sources of conflict, and, more importantly, ways to manage it.

Robbins (1974) maintains that that there are three sources of conflict:

* Communication

Systems of communication can have a significant effect on the kinds of experience that individuals have and on the ways in which information percolates through an organisation. Lack of appropriate information by an appropriate time is a very frequent complaint.

* Structure (including ambiguity, rewards, interdependence)

If there is role ambiguity where employees are not certain what is and what is not part of their job, conflict is inevitable the same applies in the case of task ambiguity where employees are not clear how certain tasks