Chapter 13 - Formal Procedures for
Group Decision Making
THIS CHAPTER WILL
DISCUSS:
1. Procedures groups can use to conduct their discussions.
2. The circumstances under which each procedure is most effective.
3. How research has examined these procedures.
4. Computerized versions of these procedures.
INTRODUCTION
As we discussed earlier, it
is difficult to judge the performance of a decision-making group. For example,
is a new company policy the best one that the group in charge could have
created? We have no standard we can use to judge the policy. Instead, the most
objective method we can use to evaluate a decision-making group is to look at
the procedure, or method, the
group uses. We have discussed this idea several times in this book. For instance
does the group take into account as many ideas as it can? Does it strive to
evaluate these ideas as thoroughly as possible?
Hence, scientists have
concentrated on the procedures that decision-making groups use. Even further,
researchers have used their observations to make recommendations. They have
proposed various formal decision-making procedures that groups can follow.
These sets of rules, or
guidelines, are the topic of this chapter, and we will be describing a number
of them. Before we begin our discussion, we would like to highlight some
general ideas about formal procedures.
Advantages of Formal
Procedures
Behind the general ideas
that we will examine is a unifying concept that formal procedures are helpful.
Scientists believe that procedures improve the decision-making performance of
groups. In an essay on the topic,
We will describe
Reason 1
First, scientists
purposefully design formal procedures so that they are very different from free
discussion. This helps groups avoid the dangers of complacency.
Free discussion can be safe
and routine because it is the way groups usually make decisions. It follows,
then, that formal procedures lead to "unnatural" discussions because
groups do not usually use them. "Unnatural" discussions can be
uncomfortable and difficult for group members. People who advocate formal
procedures see this as a strength. They believe
procedures can get group members out of ruts and sloppy habits of thinking.
Being forced to act "unnaturally" can make members think more clearly
and creatively than they normally do.
Reason 2
Second, formal procedures increase the
likelihood that group members think about the same thing at the same time.
In free discussions,
coordinating activities may be a problem. One member may be trying to analyze a
problem, while a second is proposing a solution, and a third is trying to
evaluate earlier proposals. Formal methods, on the other hand, tell members
what they should be thinking about at stages of the discussion. This is
advantageous because it increases the likelihood that group members stay on the
same wavelength.
Reason 3
Third, formal procedures
make it difficult for a few talkative members to dominate a group's discussion.
In free discussions one or
two people tend to talk a disproportionately large amount of time. This
tendency increases as group size increases. The less talkative members get shut
out, and the group never hears their ideas. Certain formal procedures, however,
can control how much members speak and in which order. These procedures can
help ensure that all members have the opportunity to present their ideas. In
addition, they make it less likely that a few people can dominate a group's
discussion.
Reason 4
Fourth, formal
procedures help curb powerful group members.
Powerful members can easily
exploit free discussion and use it for their own purposes. This does not happen
as easily under the guidelines of formal procedures. Guidelines make it more
difficult for powerful members to control what happens during a meeting.
For example, in free
discussion a powerful person could set the group rules for what members can and
cannot discuss. With a formal procedure, however, the procedure itself
determines the group rules. The whims of a powerful member do not have control.
Further, members can
reinforce ground rules easier if the group is following a set procedure.
Suppose that a group is trying to follow a formal procedure faithfully. Frank
makes an inappropriate statement. Dan tries to enforce the procedure and says
that Frank's comment was out of line. Frank will know that Dan is using the
procedure's group rules as a basis for his judgment and not his own prejudices.
Frank is therefore much more likely to accept Dan's judgment.
Reason 5
Fifth, formal
procedures help groups deal successfully with conflict.
Without formal group rules,
some groups may try to smooth over or ignore conflict. Still other groups may
become embroiled in destructive conflict. This destructive conflict can come
from power struggles or personality conflicts that have little to do with the
substantive issues facing the group.
Procedures help groups deal
with conflict in two ways. They force groups to face up to conflict, and they
lay out rules as to when and how members can discuss disagreements. As a
result, procedures increase the likelihood that groups will manage conflict
successfully.
Reason 6
Sixth, formal
procedures help give a sense of direction to meetings.
When members have a free
discussion, they often feel that their meeting is getting nowhere or going
around in circles. This can lead to great frustration. Consequently, members
may come to a premature decision because they want to end the discussion
quickly.
In contrast, under formal
methods groups know at all times where they are in a discussion. They know how
far along the decision process they have come and how far they have to go. Each
step that members complete helps give them a feeling of accomplishment and
progress. This makes it less likely that they will become frustrated and less
likely that they will make their decision prematurely. Instead, their decision
should be better because they take the time they need.
Reason 7
Seventh, formal
methods give groups a basis for judging how well they are proceeding.
With free discussion group
members often have no way to judge whether their group is handling its
discussion well. Under formal guidelines, however, members can more easily
determine whether the group is doing what it ought to be doing.
In addition, a procedure
makes it more likely that members will evaluate themselves and examine whether
they are doing a good job. The group as a whole can use the procedure as a
basis for their evaluation. It can help them discuss and evaluate their
discussion. This kind of reflection and self-examination is likely to help the
group's future performance.
Reason 8
Eighth, a procedure
can empower the group members.
Formal guidelines can give
members the feeling that they are in control of their destiny as a group. This
happens when members know they have followed a procedure well, managed conflict
successfully, given all members an equal opportunity to participate, and as a
result have made a good decision. Further, this feeling of control is not false
if the members have indeed made a good decision after following the steps of a
procedure. They truly are in greater control of their destiny than a free
discussion group. A free group discussion allows the whims and prejudices of
powerful members to control the decision-making process.
Advantages Can Be
Problematic for Some
Given all these advantages,
why do groups not jump at the opportunity to use procedures?
Why would this be so? Let
us go through some advantages and see how they might cause problems for some
group members. The first advantage we noted was that procedures are
"unnatural" and require effort. This may discourage less dedicated
group members from wanting to try them. Another advantage that would be
unattractive to some members is the way that procedures can restrict personal
power. Members who wish to use group discussion to advance their pet proposals
or personal status will fight any effort to use a procedure that will lessen their
power. Similarly, members who just want to talk a lot will feel constrained by
procedures that control their talk time. Finally, a procedure that makes
conflict more open will threaten members who fear conflict.
Recommendations for
Using Procedures
Further, groups are wary of
formal procedures for other reasons. A procedure is no panacea for group
problems. A formal method will scarcely help group members who lack the skills
or motivation to think creatively and critically. Additionally, problems can
develop if a group trusts one member to lead it through a method and follows
that member blindly. The leader could exploit the procedure for personal
benefit as easily as someone could exploit a free discussion. Thus, if a group
is going to use a procedure,
1. Train as many members as possible in the procedure.
2. Follow the original
design of the procedure. Do not allow members to pressure the group into
changing the procedure in a way that would damage its effectiveness. If members
want to adapt a procedure, they should do so carefully. They should have
knowledge about what they are doing and think about all implications of the
changes.
3. If the discussion is
particularly "touchy," a neutral facilitator should lead the group
through the procedure. This does not absolve the members themselves, however,
from learning and understanding the procedure.
4. Evaluate the group's
performance after the decision is made. The members then should adopt any
improvements that they will need for the next time they make a decision.
Researchers have created
various formal group procedures. Some consist of extremely detailed rules;
others are little more than general guidelines. Before we move on to the
extremely detailed procedures, we will review some of the more general ideas.
GENERAL FORMAL
PROCEDURES
Consensus Rules
Hall and Watson (1970)
proposed six rules to help groups reach a mutually satisfying consensus. As we
have discussed throughout this book, a consensus exists when all group members
accept a proposal. The rules that Hall and Watson developed are:
1. Members should avoid
arguing for their "pet" proposals.
2. Groups should avoid "us against them" stalemates in which each
side in a dispute must either "win" or "lose."
3. Members should not comply with a group majority if they do so only to avoid
conflict.
4. Groups should not use rules for decision-making that allow them to avoid
conflict, such as a "majority wins" rule.
5. Groups should view differences of opinion among members as natural and
helpful.
6. Members should consider that their early, initial agreements are suspect and
premature.
Methods to Avoid
Premature Decisions
Groups can make decisions
prematurely if members do not examine their options sufficiently. General
procedures have been proposed to help group members avoid premature decisions.
We shall focus on two of these procedures: "devil's advocacy" and
"dialectical inquiry." Both are similar to the methods that President
Kennedy used to keep groupthink out of his group during the Cuban Missile
Crisis (see Chapter 12).
Similarities
These procedures
are similar. They are both based on the idea that faulty assumptions can cause
problems for groups. The hypothesis is that one reason that groups often make
premature decisions is that their members unwittingly accept the same basic
assumptions about their group situation.
For example, an
environmental organization is planning its activities for the next year. It
must estimate how much money it will have available for activities. Members may
all have assumptions about the money that the group can raise, and the
organization may accept an estimate without questioning it. In the end, the
group could come to a decision that leads it into financial difficulties.
Hence, the goal of both
procedures is to help members examine their assumptions.
Another similarity between
"devil's advocacy" and "dialectical inquiry" involves the
way groups should begin their discussions. In both procedures, the decision-making
group splits into two subgroups. One subgroup comes up with a preliminary
decision. The members of this subgroup also list the assumptions they used to
form their decision.
Differences
Beyond these
similarities, the two procedures start to differ.
In devil's advocacy, the
second subgroup prepares a criticism of the preliminary decision and the
assumptions behind it. For example, half the planning group in the
environmental organization decides on a list of activities. They also estimate
the amount of money the organization can raise to pay for activities. The other
half proceeds to criticize this preliminary decision. It may reject the
decision on the grounds that the assumptions about the money available are too
high. The first subgroup then proposes a second preliminary decision in
response to the criticisms from the devil's advocacy group. A second list of
assumptions is behind this new proposal. What happens next? The second subgroup
again criticizes this new decision and the assumptions behind it. Hence, the
devil's advocacy procedure sets up a cycle in which groups go back and forth
between proposals and criticisms. This cycle continues until the first subgroup
comes up with a decision that the second subgroup can accept.
In dialectical inquiry, the
second subgroup does not merely criticize the first subgroup's preliminary
decision and assumptions but proposes an alternative, based on a different set
of assumptions. In the environmental organization, the second subgroup believes
that the first group has assumed a level of available income that is too high.
Therefore, the second subgroup proposes fewer planned activities. The two subgroups then come together to compare ideas. They
look at the feasibility of both proposals and at the accuracy of each one's
underlying assumptions. This discussion continues until the entire group
reaches a consensus. They must agree on the most valid set of assumptions.
Based on those assumptions, they make a final decision (see Mason, 1969, for a
description of both devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry).
General Methods vs.
Detailed Procedures
We have discussed several
general procedures, such as the consensus rules that Hall and Watson created
and the devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry methods. These general methods
can be valuable aids to group decision making. None of them, however, details a
procedure that groups should use to govern their actual decision-making
process. The procedures that we will examine next attempt to provide such
details.
EXPLANATION OF
DETAILED FORMAL PROCEDURES
"Linear"
Models
All the methods we will
examine are linear models. In
other words, the models assume that a sequence of stages is important in any
decision-making task. The idea is that groups perform best when they divide
discussion into a small number of distinct stages. The stages may be, for
example, "idea generation," "idea evaluation," and
"choice of the best idea." The group should perform each stage in
sequential order and never go back to a previous stage once the group has moved
on to the next stage in the discussion.
Differences
In general, the procedures
we will examine differ in two ways. First, theorists make slightly different
claims about the degree to which groups should allow members to speak freely. Most
models prefer comcon networks, in which all members
can talk to one another freely. One method we will describe, however, leans toward a wheel-like structures, in which communication flows
through a central member.
Second, and more important,
the procedures assume different views of group members' decision-making
capabilities. As we discussed in the last chapter, various theories are
concerned with people's capabilities when it comes to making decisions. Some of
the models we are about to examine assume that people have the ability to
optimize totally. Others claim that people are able to use only the grossest satisficing methods. In between these two extremes are some
models that compromise between optimizing and satisficing.
If you are ever in the position of planning a group decision-making meeting,
you should remember these factors as you choose the procedure the group will
use. You need to consider your beliefs about the decision-making abilities of
the people who will be responsible for the group's verdict.
Our Examination
We will now examine some
detailed procedures. We are going to make some suggestions concerning the
proper circumstances for using each of the procedures that we will discuss. At
this time, except for one case, our recommendations will be based on the
logical implications of the models and not on experimental evidence. Later in
this chapter, we will discuss research concerning these procedures.
Let us begin our
discussion. For our purposes, we will focus on one decision-making task. Let us
see how each procedure works when a group must decide on a menu for dinner. We
shall call our group the "Diner's Club."
BRAINSTORMING
Brainstorming is a technique to help groups
generate proposals for alternative courses of action. It was not intended as a
method for carrying out the entire decision-making process. Osborn (1957)
proposed the idea of brainstorming. He believed it was a way to help people
make more creative proposals than they otherwise could have.
As you recall, we
distinguished in Chapter 2 between theorists who are wholists
and those who are reductionists. Wholists
believe that people perform tasks better when they are members of a group than
when they are alone. In contrast, reductionists
believe that people perform tasks better when they work alone than when they
are in groups. Osborn was a firm believer in wholism.
He believed that people working in groups have the potential to generate more
ideas and more creative ideas than when they work alone.
Osborn also believed, however,
that people often do not realize this potential because individuals working in
groups are often afraid that other group members will evaluate their ideas
negatively. People are particularly afraid that the group will dislike their
"craziest" notions. Therefore, group members often are afraid to
express their ideas in public. This is a significant drawback because
"crazy" ideas are sometimes the most creative and best solutions to
problems. Hence, Osborn wanted to provide a technique for generating ideas in
groups that would make people comfortable enough to express even their most
"off-the-wall" ideas. To do this, he created the brainstorming
method.
Brainstorming is easy. The
first step is to choose a person to write down all the proposals that the group
generates. Next, the members call out their ideas. They do so under unique
conditions:
1. Under no circumstances
can members evaluate any proposal. Encouragement is fine, but the group does no
evaluating until a later stage. Osborn believed that people are apprehensive
about suggesting their ideas because they are afraid that others will evaluate
these ideas negatively. Therefore, if the group follows the rule that members cannot evaluate proposals, people should feel
free to express any ideas that they have. Brainstorming will not work unless
the group strictly follows this first rule. If any member begins to evaluate a
proposal, the group must enforce the rule by gently reminding the group as a whole not to evaluate ideas.
2. The members should attempt
to generate as many proposals as they can. A large quantity of options should
ensure that at least a few of them will be good.
3. Participants should
"freewheel," that is, attempt to come up with the wildest proposals
they can imagine. Most of these ideas will no doubt be bad, but one of them may
instead turn out to be a stroke of genius.
4. Members should
"piggyback," that is, generate ideas that build on suggestions of
other group members.
Example
The Diner's Club
brainstorms about dinner suggestions, following the conditions set forth above.
They arrange their ideas in columns and find that they have the following list:
Hamburger |
Salad |
Lasagne |
|
French
fries |
Soup |
Lo mein |
|
Steak |
Spaghetti |
Chow mein |
|
Pork
chops |
Spaghetti
and meat balls |
Tacos |
|
Lamb
chops |
Spaghetti
and meat sauce |
Tortillas |
As you can see, the Diner's Club has a wide range of ideas for dinner. Did
brainstorming help the group? If so, how much? The
effectiveness of the brainstorming technique is variously regarded.
Effectiveness of
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is most
appropriate when the group's task is specific and fairly limited in range.
Under these conditions, the technique will lead to proposals that are most
likely to be feasible and least likely to be so numerous that they overwhelm
the group.
A disadvantage of
brainstorming is that the sheer number of options can force a group to spend a
great deal of time evaluating possible courses of action. Further, members
express many potentially good ideas in a vague form as they brainstorm.
Consequently, the group needs a great deal of time to formulate more precise
versions of these options to evaluate them properly.
Brainstorming
Experiments
Scientists have conducted
many experiments in an attempt to discover whether or not brainstorming
actually does what Osborn intended. In Chapter 2 we described the work of
problem-solving groups. As you recall, the best way to study problem-solving
groups is to compare them with "nominal groups" of the same number of
people working alone writing down their ideas. We will call this second method
the silent generation of
proposals. In this way, researchers can compare the quality and quantity of
ideas coming from groups and from same-size aggregates. This is also the best
technique for studying brainstorming.
Lamm and Trommsdorff Review
Lamm and Trommsdorff
(1972) reviewed a number of brainstorming studies. Their findings are not
encouraging. In one part of their review, Lamm and Trommsdorff looked at 12 experiments. In 9 of the 12, nominal
groups performing silent generation produced more nonduplicative
ideas than actual brainstorming groups. The remaining 3 found no difference
between aggregates and brainstorming groups. Lamm and
Trommsdorff also reviewed 8 studies that looked at
the quality of ideas generated. Six of these found that nominal groups
generated ideas that were, overall, superior to those of brainstorming groups.
Philipsen, Mulac, and Dietrich Study
Why do
brainstorming groups produce less and poorer ideas than nominal groups? Is it
because brainstorming somehow decreases people's individual abilities to come
up with ideas? A study by Philipsen, Mulac, and Dietrich (1979) provides evidence against this
possibility. Participants performed two brainstorming tasks, which were each
separated into two stages. In the preliminary stage of the first task, group
members worked together for 12 minutes and made verbal proposals for solving a
problem. During the second stage of this task, the members separated. They then
silently generated ideas in response to the same problem for 12 minutes.
For the second task,
participants worked alone the entire time. During the first stage of this task,
participants took 12 minutes to make individual verbal proposals for solving a
problem. In the second stage, just as in the first task, they silently
generated ideas for the same problem for 12 minutes.
The researchers looked at
the first stage of each task and compared the participants' performance. They
found, as expected, that nominal groups verbalized more nonduplicative
proposals than brainstorming groups during this stage. The aggregates averaged
41 ideas; the brainstorming groups averaged only 23.
The experimenters then
compared the second stage of each task. Members of nominal and brainstorming
groups wrote down the same number of proposals, an average of 35. The
researchers also judged that the quality of the ideas was similar. These
findings suggest that members of brainstorming groups may have the potential to
generate as many, and as good, ideas as people in nominal groups.
Thus, brainstorming does
not harm people's individual decision-making capacities. Therefore, there is
something else going on during brainstorming sessions that harms idea
generation. Several possible reasons for these findings have been suggested:
1. Members may continue to
fear criticism and, therefore, withhold proposals, even though the conditions
of brainstorming forbid criticism.
2. Brainstorming groups may spend too much time in task-irrelevant talk.
3. People in the groups may become overaroused,
causing them not to be at their psychological best for creative work.
4. Dominant and talkative participants might monopolize the brainstorming
discussion, preventing other members from making their suggestions.
5. As they do with additive tasks, members of brainstorming groups may engage
in "social loafing" (see Chapter 2).
Although all five of these
proposals are probably correct from time to time, research by Diehl and Stroebe (1987) suggests that the most important reason may
be a sixth. In a group brainstorming session, there is often a delay between
the time when a group member thinks of an idea and the time the member can
contribute the idea to the group. This is because other members are usually
speaking. During that time, members are prone to either forget their idea or,
contrary to the rules of brainstorming, suppress it. Further, when group
members listen to one another's proposals, they are often distracted from
thinking of ideas themselves. In short, brainstorming leads to production blocking, or the inability to
concentrate on idea generation and verbalization. This problem does not occur
in silent idea generation, in which people can concentrate on ideas and write
them down as soon as they think of them.
It follows from the concept
of production blocking that increasing the size of a brainstorming group will not increase the number of ideas
generated, despite the extra people. More members means
more difficulty getting the floor and more other people to listen ti, thus increase production blocking. This implication was
supported in research by Bouchard and Hare (1970). The number of ideas
generated by brainstorming groups with 5, 7, and 9 members was compared with
the number of ideas generated by nominal groups of 5, 7, and 9 individuals
brainstorming alone. The individuals in the 5-person nominal groups generated
more than 100 ideas on average, and this number increased to about 140 for the
7-person nominal groups and 175 for the 9-person. The real brainstorming
groups, no matter their size, only generated about 60.
General Conclusions
Thus the advantages of
silent idea generation over brainstorming are real. Nominal groups doing silent
idea generation tend to produce ideas higher in quality and quantity than
brainstorming groups. This does not necessarily imply that people should always
generate proposals when they are alone instead of when they are in groups. For
example, brainstorming is fun. The maintenance advantages it provides groups
may outweigh the loss of quality and quantity of ideas. Another consideration
is that the experience of brainstorming may improve the ability of group
members to work together during the subsequent stages of decision making (Philipsen et al., 1979). Thus, the group experience of
generating ideas together still may be worthwhile, despite the experimental
findings.
Further, it is important to
note that brainstorming groups produce more ideas than groups with that have no
procedure for generating proposals. Kramer, Kuo, and
Dailey (1997) explored this notion in their research. Five member groups were
asked to develop a two-hour orientation program for high school students
visiting their university. Groups generated ideas either through either silent generation, brainstorming, or free discussion.
Once again, silent generation led to the most proposals, but brainstorming also
led to more ideas than free discussion. Further, brainstorming groups were
equally satisfied with their decision process and their communication as silent
generation groups and more satisfied than free discussion groups. Therefore, if
group members are going to generate ideas together, brainstorming may be a good
method for doing it.
THE NOMINAL GROUP
TECHNIQUE
In this section we will
describe the procedure called the Nominal
Group Technique, or NGT,
proposed by Delbecq, Van de Ven,
and Gustafson (1975). This procedure is a complete method for decision making,
moving from idea generation to the final decision. It also provides a procedure
for generating ideas, which has both advantages and disadvantages in comparison
with the brainstorming technique.
Description
So far in this book, we
have used the term "nominal groups" to denote groups that do not
actually meet. Instead, several individuals work alone to create the products
of nominal groups. NGT maintains that members of a nominal group do meet. The technique, however,
discourages interaction among group participants. Members interact directly
with an assigned group leader instead of with one another. Thus, the model
attempts to establish a wheel network. We should not overemphasize the analogy
between NGT and the wheel structure, however. Members in a group using NGT do
see one another and hear one another's messages. Hence, the group structure is
not exactly a wheel.
NGT consists of the
following six-step procedure:
Step I--Silent
Generation of Ideas.
The leader first presents the group with the issue that it needs to resolve.
For example, the leader of the Diner's Club might ask, "What should we
cook for dinner?" Next, the leader and the other group members work
individually, silently writing a list of alternative courses of action. They
have a predetermined amount of time in which to do this. For instance, the
leader of the Diner's Club could give the group five minutes to write ideas. If
someone disrupts this silent, independent activity, the leader should speak to
the group as a whole rather than to the guilty person. For instance, the leader
might say to the group, "Please, we should be working alone right now.''
Step
2--Round-Robin Recording of Ideas. Under direction of the leader, the members take turns speaking. One at
a time, the leader and all members each present one proposal to the group. The
leader writes down the ideas, in the form of short phrases, on a sheet of
paper, chalkboard, or similar medium and places the list so that it is clearly
within each member's sight. The leader should try to phrase a member's proposal
in the same wording that the member used. Alternatively, the leader can ask for
the member's approval if any paraphrasing of the idea is necessary.
Participants continue taking turns and offering one proposal at a time until no
new ideas are forthcoming. Members should not restrict themselves by saying
only the alternatives that they have written on their personal lists. They
should voice any further ideas that come into their minds during this period.
As in brainstorming, the participants should piggyback on the ideas of one
another. If a person has no new proposals when his or her turn comes around,
the person should say "Pass" and give the floor to the next member.
People who pass may reenter when their turn comes again if they think of new
ideas. If all members pass on any round, the leader should declare that Step 2
is over.
Step
3--Serial Discussion for Clarification. Starting at the top of the list, the leader covers each proposal in
turn. He or she leads a group discussion to ensure a common understanding of
each alternative. As the leader comes to each new item on the list, the member
responsible for the idea can take the major role in the discussion. The group
should, however, encourage all members to express their thoughts about the
meanings and implications of all ideas. The rules for this discussion include
keeping evaluation to a minimum and not allowing arguments about the ideas. The
leader is responsible for enforcing these rules. Again, if someone breaks a
rule, the leader should criticize the group as a whole rather than the guilty
person.
Step
4--Preliminary Vote on Item Importance. The intention of this step is to shorten the list of alternatives. The
group does this by eliminating proposals that have little support among group
members. To do so, participants work silently. They rate each idea and write
down their ratings on a piece of paper. The members use a predetermined method
to rank each alternative. One method is for each person to choose five favorite
ideas and rank-order them with number one being the favorite. Ideas that do not
fall into these top five do not receive a ranking. If the Diner's Club used
this method of ranking, the members' lists might look like Table 13.1.
After members complete
their rankings, they hand in their sheets of paper to the leader. The leader
should shuffle the papers to maintain member anonymity. He or she then tallies
the rankings for each proposal on the chalkboard, large paper, or whatever else
he or she is using to display the proposals. The group then looks at the
rankings and eliminates the alternatives that most group members do not
support. The members attempt to retain five to ten ideas that they can discuss
further. In our example, the Diner's Club might retain the alternative that
three members approve, such as steak, spaghetti and meat sauce, chow mein, and tacos. The group might further add salad because
it was one member's favorite choice.
|
Table
13.1 |
Group
Members |
|||
|
Proposal |
A |
B |
C |
D |
|
Steak |
1 |
3 |
|
4 |
|
Spaghetti
and meat sauce |
3 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
Salad |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Chow mein |
|
4 |
2 |
3 |
|
Hamburgers |
2 |
|
|
5 |
|
Tacos |
|
2 |
5 |
1 |
|
Hot dogs |
5 |
|
|
|
|
Sandwiches |
|
5 |
4 |
|
|
Pork
chops |
4 |
|
3 |
|
An alternative ranking
method is to have members rate each proposal on a scale from "0" to
"10." "Zero" would indicate a terrible idea, and
"10" would represent a great proposal. The members could then
eliminate the proposals that most members feel are poor ideas.
Step
5--Discussion of the Preliminary Vote. The intention of this step is to allow members to study the remaining
proposals further in preparation for a final vote. Again, the group looks at
each alternative in turn. Members should raise any additional questions that
they might have about the meanings and implications of the proposals.
Evaluation of the ideas is again discouraged.
Step
6--Final Vote. Members once again individually
evaluate the remaining proposals and write their judgments on paper. The leader
again anonymously tabulates the ratings, or rankings, and writes them on the
paper or chalkboard in front of the group. The idea that the group members
evaluate most highly becomes the group choice.
Advantages
Looking over the steps of
the model, we can see that Delbecq et al. designed
the NGT to restrict the flow of communication among group members. In addition,
the rules of the technique make it difficult for the group as a whole to
evaluate the proposals or argue about them. Members cannot easily become aware
of one another's feelings concerning the proposals. Thus, when a leader fears
that free group discussion will lead to undesired conflict among members, NGT
is a good technique for the group to use. In addition, the method is effective
in situations in which members are strangers and may feel uncomfortable
disclosing their preferences. The procedure is also effective if participants
wish to keep their opinions secret.
In short, NGT depersonalizes
group decision making. The method is a good defense against the effects of
overly talkative or dominant members. It ensures that all participants have an
equal opportunity to propose courses of action. Through the use of a
paper-and-pencil rating, it also guarantees that all will have equal input for
choosing the best proposal.
Further, we can best
characterize NGT as compromise between optimizing and satisficing
procedures. The technique is not really a satisficing
method, in that it is likely to lead to an optimal decision. Unlike a truly
optimizing model, however, NGT does not maintain that people are capable of
doing many calculations at once. It does not claim that members can deal with
all the information necessary for making the optimal choice at the same time.
Instead, the technique has the group narrow the number of proposals to a rather
manageable number in Step 4. The group then has only a few ideas left to
consider during the final study stage of Step 5.
Disadvantages
The use of NGT also has
several disadvantages. For one thing, it is time-consuming. For another, it is
relatively boring for a group to go through the NGT stages. The technique may
also suppress "off-the-wall" ideas because, unlike brainstorming,
idea generation and expression are different steps in the procedure. The time
between the two allows members to think about their proposals and perhaps
choose not to say the most free-wheeling of them aloud. The person might feel
uncomfortable letting the group inspect a somewhat strange idea.
To circumvent this
potential problem, a leader may choose to omit the silent writing of ideas
described in Step 1 and replace this step with a brainstorming session. This
substitution can work as long as the leader feels that the members are sufficiently
comfortable with one another and that none of the participants will become
overly dominant.
Thus, NGT has advantages
and disadvantages. Since its creation, groups have found it useful for certain
situations.
Table 13.2 summarizes the
steps in the Nominal Group Technique.
TABLE 13.2 Summary of steps
in Nominal Group Technique.
Step 1 - Silent generation of ideas
Step 2 - Round-robin
recording of ideas
Step 3 - Serial discussion
for clarification
Step 4 - Preliminary vote
on item importance
Step 5 - Discussion of the
preliminary vote
Step 6 - Final vote
Now we shall move on to
another procedure that groups have been using for several decades.
REFLECTIVE THINKING
The Reflective Thinking procedure is an
attempt to provide groups with an optimizing decision-making method. It is
based on the work of the philosopher John Dewey (1910). Dewey proposed that
people generally follow a series of steps when they think
"reflectively." He believed that people make "active, persistent,
and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the
light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it
tends" (p. 6).
Dewey's Hypothesis
In Dewey's view, a
reflective thinker goes through the following stages when considering a
problem:
1. The person feels that a
''difficulty'' or problem exists in the present situation or course of action.
This problem exists due to any of the following causes:
a. The situation and a
desired goal are different. For example, the person wishes to reach a town but
is lost.
b. An inconsistency exists
among known facts and/or beliefs. For instance, the person reaches a town that
he or she thought was the destination, but the town has a different name than
the person thought it would.
c. An inconsistency exists
between events as they have occurred and the expectation of how they should
occur. These expectations are based on rules or laws. The person thought that
walking westward would lead him or her to the town, for instance, but instead
the person became lost.
2. The person locates and
defines the difficulty as precisely as possible and looks for the causes of the
problem. This step requires that the reflective thinker use "suspended
judgment." This means making an active attempt not to accept the most
available cause or explanation for the difficulty without additional
reflection. In more modern terminology, the person must make an effort not to
use a simplified heuristic when making a judgment. For instance, why does the
town have a different name than the person expected? The most available
explanation might be that the person is lost. He or she should not simply
accept this, however. Is it perhaps the same town with a different name? Is the
town the person wants simply very close by? Further questions can follow.
3. The person forms an
image of the ideal solution to the difficulty. This image includes the
characteristics of the ideal solution and what the ideal solution would
accomplish. In our example, the ideal solution would succeed in getting her or
him to the town being sought.
4. The reflective thinker
proposes a set of theories, hypotheses, or solutions that may solve the
problem. For example, the person is in the right town, or the person needs to
take a different road.
5. The person evaluates the
proposals. Using the results from the third step, the person knows the
requirements for an optimal solution. He or she compares the proposals with
these requirements and chooses the most reasonable solution. For instance, if
the person decides that he or she is lost, he or she then decides, based on
evaluation, that the optimal solution to this dilemma is to take another road.
6. The reflective thinker
finally makes further observations and tests to see if the choice is correct.
The person asks directions and further discovers where he or she should be
heading.
Description
In Chapter 12, we discussed
research that suggests that people may not normally make decisions in an
orderly process, such as the one that Dewey envisioned above. Nevertheless,
scientists have used Dewey's proposal as the basis for a decision-making model.
The model uses Dewey's ideas to suggest how people and groups should make decisions. As we have stated,
the resulting model is the Reflective Thinking procedure. It is an optimizing
method that uses a comcon communication network. As
long as all group members know how to use the procedure, an assigned leader is
unnecessary. If this is not the case, an assigned leader who is familiar with
the technique should lead the group.
The Reflective Thinking
method uses the following steps, each with its own set of questions:
Step I--Awareness of the Difficulty
a. "What is a precise
definition of the difficulty?" To answer this question, the group states
the problem. For example, the Diner's Club might ask, "What should we cook
for dinner?" The group then must come to an agreement about the meanings
of the important terms in this statement. For instance, does the term
"dinner" mean only a meal that people eat late in the day? Does it
also imply that the meal is large?
b.
"What are the symptoms of the difficulty? How has the problem manifested
itself? Whom does it hurt, and how does it hurt them? Under what conditions
does it harm them?" In the case of the Diner's Club, the symptom is
hunger. It affects the members of the group by making them uncomfortable.
c. "How big is the
problem? Is it getting worse?" For the members of the Diner's Club, it is
late in the day, and the symptom of hunger is getting worse.
d. "What are the
implications of the difficulty in the future?" The members might answer,
"If we do not eat, we will eventually become weak and irritable."
e. "What is being done
at present to meet the problem? In what ways are these efforts
ineffective?" In the case of the Diner's Club, nothing is being done. No
one is making dinner.
Step 2--Analysis of the Problem
a. "What causes led to
the present difficulty? What conditions exist in the situation that allow the
causes to act as they do?" For the Diner's Club, the problem is that they
have nothing planned for dinner. This difficulty occurred because they did not
think about it earlier. Conditions kept them from thinking about dinner. They
were working hard on an important project of planning a group trip to a gourmet
festival, and they were not yet hungry. Hence, when they got together to plan
their club's dinner, it was already late. A fundamental cause
for the members' difficulty is that people must eat to live, and the club is
now together in order to eat.
b.
"Which causes are major and which are secondary?" The major reason for the difficulty
is that the club members failed to think about it. Their not being hungry
earlier should not have kept them from thinking about it, and thus this cause
is actually minor. Indeed, the members are now hungry; so the cause has become
irrelevant to the present situation.
c. "What direction
should our approach take?" The group must make a decision concerning which
aspect of the problem the best course of action should address. Should it deal
directly with the fundamental cause? Should it instead focus on the less
important causes or on the symptoms? Ideally, people wish to deal with the
fundamental cause of a difficulty, which is often impractical. In the case of the
Diner's Club, members must accept that people must eat to live. They can then
deal with the problem of deciding what to eat.
d. "Which requirements
must a satisfactory solution meet?" This is perhaps the most difficult
part of the Reflective Thinking procedure; yet it is an extremely important
step if the group wants to perform the procedure well. Here, the group
generates a list of criteria that an optimal proposal must meet. Scientists who
advocate the Reflective Thinking procedure have not taken a stand regarding how
the group should generate this list of solutions. Perhaps an abbreviated NGT
procedure would suffice. Members could follow steps 1 through 4 of NGT, for
example. In general, some criteria that would concern the group would be the
extent to which the proposal would eliminate the difficulty and its symptoms
and the extent to which the course of action is feasible in terms of time,
person-power, expense, and material. In the case of the Diner's Club, the group
decides that tonight's dinner must meet the criteria of (1) taking less than an
hour to cook, (2) being relatively easy to prepare, (3) requiring foods that
are on hand in a condition that the members can use (for example, the food
cannot be frozen), and (4) being plentiful enough to feed the entire group.
e. "Must a course of
action observe any 'boundaries'?" By "boundaries," we mean
capability and feasibility values. The existence of boundaries might suggest
the need for additional criteria for an optimal proposal. For example, cooking
a steak might be sufficient for solving the difficulty, and it is feasible as
well. If the group includes some vegetarians, however, a steak would present a
problem. It would go beyond the boundaries that a course of action should
observe for the group. For our purposes, however, let us assume that the
Diner's Club would like its dinner to meet a certain aesthetic level. This
would become the group's fifth criterion.
Step 3--Suggestions of Possible Solutions
As with question
"d" above, the Reflective Thinking procedure does not provide a
method for listing possible solutions. A group may choose its own technique.
For instance, members could choose to brainstorm proposals. Another technique
would be to perform steps 1 and 2 of the NGT procedure. Let us assume that in
this step the Diner's Club comes up with the same list of proposed foods that
it generated in the example of NGT.
Step 4--Evaluation of Solutions
This step includes the
major aspect of Step 3 in the NGT model. Both steps emphasize that this is the
time when members should come to understand the meanings and implications of
each proposed course of action. The evaluation of solutions in Reflective
Thinking, however, goes far beyond Step 3 of NGT. Groups using Reflective
Thinking take each idea in turn and evaluate it. Evaluation is performed by
judging the proposals in terms of the extent to which they met the criteria and
boundaries that the group set in Step 2. In our example of the Diner's Club,
the group makes the judgments shown in Table 13.3.
|
Table
13.3 |
|
|
Criteria |
|
|
|
Food |
Quick |
Easy |
Available |
Plentiful |
Aesthetic |
|
Steak |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
Spaghetti
and meat sauce |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Salad |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Chow mein |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
Hamburgers |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Tacos |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
Hot dogs |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
|
Sandwiches |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
|
Pork
chops |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
As you can see, the group
judged that all of the suggestions were sufficiently quick and easy. It
appears, however, that the group members do not have steak, hot dogs, pork
chops, Chinese or Mexican foods available. They do have enough ground beef for
meat sauce, but they do not have enough for hamburgers. Sandwiches do not meet
the aesthetic standards of the group. This means that the members are left with
only two alternatives that meet both the criteria and boundaries that they have
set for their dinner. These choices are spaghetti and meat sauce and salad.
Rather than trying to decide between them, the group opts to make them both.
Step 5--Implementation of
Reflective Thinking
does not include a special process for this step. As with NGT, a group needs to
repeat all the steps in order to plan how it will implement its decisions. This
time the new difficulty will be "How will we prepare the spaghetti and
salad?" The steps will start all over again with this new question.
Advantages
As with all techniques, the
use of the Reflective Thinking procedure has both advantages and disadvantages.
On the plus side, the model leads group members to explore each proposal
methodically. It can also help members make decisions in as optimizing and
unbiased a manner as possible. The procedure can do this because it separates
"problem analysis," "solution generation," and
"solution evaluation." The model also has an air of objectivity
because it uses criteria as the major basis for evaluating proposals. This
objectivity may help to soften the hard feelings that could result if the group
does not accept certain members' "pet" ideas.
Disadvantages
The Reflective Thinking
model does have some drawbacks. One weakness is that the method assumes that
people can reach consensus on criteria. This idea, in turn, presupposes that
group members have a common set of values. Such values would include, for
instance, what is important and what is not. For example, woe to the Diner's
Club if half its members hungrily demanded a lot of food quickly, while the
other half preferred to spend time preparing something really good! It may be
difficult for members to agree about criteria.
Further, the model assumes
that people have the ability to optimize fully. In particular, the method holds
that people can think of criteria for judging solutions before they think of
the solutions themselves, which is extremely difficult. It is more
"natural" to think of criteria while judging proposals. Groups that
use the Reflective Thinking procedure can fall into this "natural"
process; the problem is that groups may neglect to evaluate certain proposals
against all criteria. For example, in discussing its third alternative
solution, a group may think of a new criterion that is particularly relevant.
The group could go back and judge the first two solutions against this new
criterion also. However, a group may neglect to do this. If this happens, the
first two proposals have an unfair advantage. As you know, a solution will
remain in the running as long as it does not fail to meet a criterion. This
means that the fewer criteria that a group uses to evaluate a proposal, the
less likely the possibility that the group will reject the idea. Therefore, in
this case, it is unfair if the group judges the third proposal against one more
criterion than the first two options. This would mean that the third option
unfairly has a greater chance of being rejected.
A group can solve this
difficulty by conducting a preliminary evaluation of proposals. During this
preliminary discussion, the group can uncover new criteria as it examines the
proposals. The group can then go back and perform a
final evaluation, in which the members judge solutions against all the
criteria. The problem with using both a preliminary and a final evaluation
period is that it makes the procedure take even longer than usual.
Keeping these drawbacks in
mind, it appears that groups should save the Reflective Thinking technique for
two basic circumstances: (1) when the problem is very important and the group
has a lot of time and patience for solving it and (2) when a standard set of
criteria already exists that the group can use to evaluate proposed courses of
action.
Table 13.4 summarizes the
steps in Reflective Thinking.
TABLE 13.4 Summary of steps
in Reflective Thinking.
Step 1. Awareness of the difficulty
A. What is a precise
definition of the difficulty?
B. What are the symptoms of
the difficulty? How has the problem manifested itself? Whom does it hurt, and
how does it hurt them? Under what conditions does it hurt them?
C. How big is the problem?
Is it getting worse?
D. What are the
implications of the difficulty in the future? What results can be expected if
the problem is not solved?
E. What is being done at
present to meet the problem? In what ways are these efforts ineffective?
Step 2. Analysis of the problem
A. What causes led to the
present difficulty? What conditions exist in the situation that allow the
causes to act as they do?
B. Which causes are major
and which are secondary?
C. What direction should
our approach take? Should it deal with major causes, secondary causes, or
symptoms of the problem?
D. Which requirements must
a satisfactory solution meet? Do they include any of the following general
criteria: the extent to which the proposal would eliminate the difficulty, the
extent to which the proposal is feasible in terms of time, person-power,
expense, and material? Are any further criteria specific to this difficulty?
E. Must a course of action
observe any "boundaries"? Do social customs, institutions, laws and soon place a boundary on the feasibility of
possible solutions? Should any of these serve as additional criteria that
possible solutions should meet?
Step 3. Proposal of possible solutions
(perform
through the use of either brainstorming or the silent generation of ideas)
Step 4. Evaluation of possible solutions
A. To what extent would
each proposal meet each criterion for a satisfactory solution?
B. Which proposal best
meets the criteria?
Step 5. Implementation of chosen solution
(perform
through the repetition of the entire procedure)
INCREMENTALISM
As you know, the Reflective
Thinking decision procedure demands that group members follow steps that lead
to extreme optimization. This is often difficult for members to do. Incrementalism, a satisficing
model, is one reaction to this difficulty.
Lindblom (1959), who created incrementalism, observed that "real life"
decision makers in industry and government tend to consider only a narrow range
of alternative solutions. These alternatives differ by only a small, or
"incremental," degree from the status quo. Lindblom
did not call this "narrow-mindedness" and criticize these decision
makers. Instead, he praised the virtues of their "incremental"
procedure. Lindblom's praise was based on his
conviction that attempts at optimization are doomed to fail. Why did Lindblom believe this?
First, Lindblom
agreed with Simon's argument that optimization is impossible because it is too
demanding on our cognitive capabilities. Second, Lindblom
observed that optimization requires group members to know a great deal of
information about consequences and alternatives. Decision makers will possess
this information if they have had previous experiences that are similar to
their present situation; however, they will not have the knowledge if the
circumstances are new to them. If people attempt to optimize in situations in
which information is scarce, they are doomed to failure.
Third, optimization
requires group members to agree on underlying values. There must be a
consensus. This does not often exist when people are grappling with large,
complex problems. Even an individual will have difficulty formulating a
consistent set of underlying values to use as a basis for decision making.
Fourth, the costs of optimization are prohibitive in resources and
person-power. In addition, attempts at optimization are very time-consuming. By
the time the group reaches a decision, the solution may no longer be
applicable. For example, a plan to save a business from bankruptcy may be very
slow in coming. If it is too slow, the business may be gone before the company
can implement the plan.
As you can see, Lindblom found many reasons for believing that the process
of optimization has many problems. He believed that the "incrementalist" procedure would alleviate all these
problems. Decision makers can adopt Lindblom's
procedure by using the following process:
1. List only those
alternatives that differ "incrementally" from the status quo. These
differences are based on the known or expected consequences of the
alternatives. In addition, the solutions must be clearly feasible in terms of
time, money, and effort to implement.
2. Compare each
alternative, in turn, with the status quo and with the other possible
solutions. Look for a proposal that has the best immediate consequences. Do not
consider long-range goals and ideals.
3. Choose the best
alternative through a voting process.
4. If a new problem
appears, go through the entire procedure again.
Lindblom hoped that a series of incremental
changes of this sort would lead to a favorable outcome and that, consequently,
group policy would steadily, if slowly, improve. Lindblom
called this process "muddling through."
Advantages
Incrementalism has some virtues as a
decision-making procedure. These virtues, however, are exactly the opposite of
what Lindblom believed they would be. Lindblom believed that his technique would be useful in the
following situation: (1) the consequences of alternative courses of action are
uncertain, (2) the current situation is unacceptable, and (3) the stakes are
high. Lindblom was wrong, however. In this type of
situation it is best that groups not use his incrementalism
process. Instead, groups facing this situation must expend the effort necessary
to make an optimal decision.
What type of situation,
then, could reveal the virtues of Lindblom's process?
His method is useful if (1) members know the consequences of alternative
courses of action, (2) the current situation needs only slight adjustments, and
(3) the stakes are low. In this type of situation, the incrementalism
procedure is a useful way to save a group from the unnecessary detail inherent
in optimizing procedure.
In Chapter 12, we discussed
the theory that Janis and Mann (1977) proposed regarding how levels of arousal
affect decision making. Their theory is useful for a group trying to decide whether
or not to use Lindblom's method. As you recall, Janis
and Mann proposed a series of questions within their decision-making process.
The first two questions were, "Is the present course of action
sufficient?" and "Is the most available alternative a sufficient
improvement?" These two questions are identical to the incrementalist
strategy. If a group answers "yes" to either question, Lindblom's model is adequate for the group. If, however,
the answer to both questions is "no," the group should move on to a
more optimizing procedure.
In addition, the incrementalism procedure has another virtue. It uses a
voting strategy, which is often a good idea; however, a group must be careful
when it uses a vote to solve problems. It is true that the optimizing method,
calling for a consensus on criteria, is problematic. If serious differences in
values exist among group members, reaching a consensus is difficult. Thus,
voting is often the only reasonable strategy to resolve group conflicts. There
are disadvantages to voting, however. The final vote may ignore the needs of
minority groups, and the group cannot claim that it reached its decision using
objective criteria.
Thus, a group may need to
perform an incremental strategy in response to inherent group conflict. If it
does, however, the group needs to be aware of the potential problems when it
votes. The group should make concessions to the minority in its decision. It
should also ensure that all interested parties are involved in the
decision-making process.
Disadvantages
The incrementalist
procedure may alleviate the problems we have outlined above in regard to
optimizing; however, Lindblom's method is badly
flawed. Lindblom is correct that optimization is
problematic; however, he tries to alleviate its difficulties by wishing them
away. For instance, it is true that the members need not worry about a lack of
information if they limit their alternatives to those that differ only slightly
from the status quo. Is this an adequate solution? It is also true that groups
do not have to worry about differences in underlying values if a"winner-takes-all" vote decides the issue.
Again, is this a good way to alleviate the problem?
People do not invest much
time and effort, nor do they tax their cognitive abilities, if they use Lindblom's incrementalist
procedure; however, they also do not have the opportunity to come up with
fundamental improvements in current policy. As you can see, Lindblom's
procedure may address the problems of optimizing, but it does so in a way that limits
decision makers.
Further, Lindblom's procedure appears to be dangerously
conservative, despite his claims that it is not. The incrementalist
process is useless when a group needs to make a major change in policy. The
method also allows voting majorities to maintain the status quo, no matter how
reasonable the arguments of minorities. In addition, the model is aimless.
Instead of moving toward goals, it moves away from problems. Lindblom sees this as a virtue. We do not see it that way.
With no goal in mind, a group can "muddle" its way to disaster.
Similarly, a group could make a series of incremental changes in the right
direction but still be unable to stop disaster from overtaking it.
RESEARCH ON FORMAL
PROCEDURES
Thus far in this chapter we
have examined why scientists believe that groups ought to make better decisions
when they use formal procedures than when they use a free discussion format. We
have described some formal procedures and also discussed how each one's design
should fit certain situations and not others.
Except for our examination
of brainstorming, however, we have not talked about much of the research on
this topic. Many studies have tested the claims that scientists make about
formal procedures. For the remainder of this chapter we will present an
analysis of this research.
Point for Researchers
to Keep in Mind
Before our analysis,
however, we must remind our readers of an important point we made at the
beginning of this chapter. Formal procedures are in some sense "unnatural."
As a result, it can be difficult for groups to follow them. This point has two
important implications.
Training and Practice Important
First, people
should not expect groups to follow formal procedures correctly without proper
training and practice. Members need to get adequate instruction in the
procedure and have the opportunity to practice it. Researchers testing the
value of formal procedures need to keep this in mind. Their research should be
with groups that have sufficient instruction and practice. Groups could follow
a procedure poorly because they are not adequately prepared. If this happens,
the study will not give the value of the procedure a fair test.
Motivation Important
Second, even if
group members have sufficient training and practice, they still may not follow
the procedure well if they do not care about the decision. Going through an
"unnatural" discussion can be difficult if the topic does not seem
important. A procedure will not help a group make a good decision if its
members merely go through the motions of doing it. Again, the value of formal
procedures will not get a fair test in this situation.
Hence, motivation is
important. Members will do best when they are making a decision that matters to
them. They are more likely to apply themselves to their task and more likely to
follow a formal procedure well than they would otherwise. When researchers want
to study the value of formal procedures, they need to be aware of this. They
should study groups in which members make decisions that affect themselves.
Only then can researchers assume that group members are motivated to try to
follow procedures well.
Thus, researchers who
evaluate discussion procedures should keep in mind that they need to study
group members who are adequately prepared and motivated.
In the following pages we
will examine research in the area of discussion procedures. To do so, we will
ask five questions. As we come to each question, we will discuss the
scientists' attempts to answer it. Hence, we will examine each question in
turn.
Question 1--Do Discussion Procedures Help Groups Make Better
Decisions?
On first glance, it
appears that a researcher would have no trouble designing a study to answer
this question. A scientist should simply train some groups in a discussion
procedure and then give them a decision to make that matters to them. He or she
then should form comparable groups and have them use free discussion. Finally,
the scientist should determine whether the groups that used a procedure made
better decisions than the other groups. Things are not that easy, however. Let
us first look at some studies that have attempted to answer this research
question. We shall then examine some problems with the studies.
Evidence That Formal Procedures Are Helpful
First, some
evidence indicates that groups that follow formal procedures make better
decisions than free discussion groups. We shall present this evidence as it
appeared from the studies and afterward discuss drawbacks to the findings.
Procedures help accuracy
For example,
remember our discussion of the "Lost on the Moon" problem-solving
task? We described it in Chapter 2. In this task, group members look at items
that can help a stranded crew get back to its spaceship, and they rank the
items in order of importance. In our earlier discussion, we said that group
rankings for this task tended to be less accurate than the rankings of the most
accurate members. Evidence indicates, however, that procedures can perhaps help
groups with these kinds of tasks.
In several studies, groups
have followed a formal procedure for "Lost on the Moon" and similar
"survival" tasks. The groups used the Hall and Watson consensus
guidelines. These groups made more accurate rankings than free discussion groups.
In addition, they often made rankings that were as accurate as their most
accurate member. In other words, Hall and Watson's rules appear to help groups
take advantage of their most competent member's knowledge. Apparently, a
procedure can enhance the accuracy of a group's solution to a problem.
Procedures help decision quality
Other studies have
examined how procedures affect the quality of a group's decision. These studies
have shown that groups can improve their decision quality by using a formal
procedure. For example, Larson (1969) looked at groups that used three
procedures, including Reflective Thinking, to approach decision-making. Larson
found that decision quality was higher in these groups than in free discussion
groups.
Researchers have found
other advantages as far as formal procedures and decision-making tasks are
concerned. Delbecq, Van de Ven,
and Gustafson (1975) compared groups using NGT with free discussion groups.
When they compared them with other groups, the researchers found that groups
that use NGT:
1. tend
to generate more nonoverlapping ideas (this advantage
increases as the size of the groups becomes larger);
2. feel more
free to participate, leading to less conformity among group members;
3. are
better able to "depersonalize" the discussion and face any conflict;
and
4. are
less cohesive but more satisfied with task accomplishments.
Procedures help member satisfaction
At the beginning of
the chapter, we described
Procedures help commitment levels
Finally, evidence
also indicates that formal procedures enhance the commitment that members feel
toward their decision. White, Dittrich, and Lang
(1980) looked at groups of nurse administrators who made decisions about how to
perform job-related tasks. Some groups used either NGT or a procedure that was
similar to Reflective Thinking. Others used free discussion. When compared with
the others, the nurses who used the procedures in their groups were more likely
to implement their decisions in their work. This finding implies that formal
procedure groups are more committed to their decisions than free discussion
groups are.
Problems with the Studies
Lack of
training and motivation. Unfortunately, as we have stated, there are several problems with these
studies. For one thing, in all studies we mentioned, the participants lacked
preparation. They received little instruction and no practice. Also, the
question of motivation presents a problem. The White, Dittrich,
and Lang (1980) study was the only one in which the decision affected the
participants. Thus, we can question the validity of all the studies. Of course,
the results were in favor of the formal procedures. Given this, one can imagine
that the participants followed the procedures reasonably well.
Lack of explanations for findings. Another problem with these studies
is more subtle than those we have mentioned. It is not at all clear why the studies
got the results they did. Why did formal procedures result in more accurate
rankings and higher quality decisions than the free discussions did?
Possible Explanations for Evidence
Improved group
discussion.
One possible explanation is that the procedures led group members to have a
more structured and well-reasoned discussion than they otherwise would have.
This, in turn, produced an improved performance. This explanation focuses on
group process. It is an example of the "input-process-output" model
of group discussion that we examined in Chapters 1 and 8. The procedures
affected group process and thereby helped group output.
None of the researchers
that we have discussed, however, looked at group process. Instead, they linked
group input directly with group output. The input consisted of the presence or
absence of a procedure, and the output was the group's task performance.
Therefore, there is no evidence from these studies that the groups that used
formal procedures performed their discussions any more skillfully than the free
discussion groups did.
Improved individual
performances. Further, it is easy to argue that group
process is not actually a factor. Did group discussion actually lead to the
improved performances of groups that used procedures? For a possible answer, we
can turn to ideas from Hewes. As you can recall, in
Chapter 8 we discussed Hewes's (1986) arguments
concerning the "input-process-output" model. One of his arguments was
that group input itself may affect how group members perform. Differences in
the input may lead to variations in the way that individual members perform.
Individual performances, in turn, may account for the different group output.
All this would mean that group process does not matter. Instead, group input is
the key to what happens.
How does Hewes's argument relate to formal procedures? The
procedures constitute group input. When group members adopt a procedure, they
may improve their thinking. This, in turn, means that the group will make a
better decision. Evidence indicates that certain ways of thinking can help
decision quality. The ability to think reflectively appears to improve the
quality of decisions (Sharp & Milliken, 1964). Procedures such as
Reflective Thinking may help group members think more reflectively on their
own. If so, these procedures would improve decision quality by themselves, as
an input variable. Their effect would be independent of the discussion process.
Investigation of Possible Explanations
Hence, there are
two explanations of how formal procedures affect group output: (1) group
discussion is important, (2) group discussion is not important. Which is
correct? To help them choose, scientists must perform complete
"input-process-output" studies.
Formal
procedures and critical functions. As you can recall from Chapter 8, Hirokawa (1985) focused on what he called
"critical" discussion functions. His research led him to conclude
that if groups want to make decisions successfully, they must:
1. Discuss the problem
thoroughly.
2. Examine the criteria for
an acceptable solution.
3. Propose a set of
realistic alternative solutions.
4. Assess the positive
aspects of each proposal.
5. Assess the negative
aspects of each proposal.
As you can see, Hirokawa's list looks very much like the Reflective
Thinking procedure. Reflective Thinking includes all the critical functions as
part of its methodology. Thus, it would make sense for Hirokawa
to examine how procedures such as Reflective Thinking relate to his critical
functions. Hirokawa wanted to know whether procedures
such as Reflective Thinking change group discussion and actually cause groups
to perform more critical functions than free discussion groups do.
Findings
of study. Hirokawa's findings suggest that the procedures do not help
groups perform critical functions. He examined free discussion groups,
Reflective Thinking groups, and groups that followed two other formal
procedures. He looked at the number of critical functions that the groups
performed and at the quality of the decisions they made. He found no difference
among the groups. All groups performed similar amounts of critical functions
and made decisions of a similar quality.
This finding stands in
contrast to the research we discussed earlier. In those other studies,
scientists found that formal procedures lead to relatively higher quality
decisions.
What did Hirokawa's study show? Why did the procedures not help his
groups perform better? The answer is not clear. If we examine Hirokawa's research methodology, we can find faults. His
groups received little instruction and no practice. They also made decisions
that did not affect them. However, this was also true for most of the studies
we reviewed earlier. Hence, these faults cannot account for Hirokawa's
research findings being different from the other studies.
Conclusions
Thus, research into
this question is not conclusive. Most studies show that groups that follow
procedures perform better than free discussion groups. We do not know, however,
why this should be so. For our purposes, let us assume for the time being that
group discussion does affect group performance. This allows us to ask further
questions about formal discussion procedures.
Question 2--Does the
Order of Steps in Formal Procedures Matter?
Comfort Level in Groups
As we discussed
earlier, formal procedures such as NGT and Reflective Thinking are linear
models. As such, they consist of sequential steps. Advocates of the procedures
insist that groups always perform these steps in the proper order. As we saw in
Chapter 8, however, free discussion may actually be closer to a
"reach-testing" process than to a linear one. This may mean that
people are most comfortable when they use a "reach-testing"
discussion method. The order of steps could affect the comfort level of group
members.
The issue of comfort has
different aspects. As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, one strength of formal procedures may actually be that they
cause discomfort among group members. A formal procedure is an unnatural
process and therefore may be uncomfortable to follow. This can perhaps shake up
members in a positive way and get them to reexamine their normal ways of doing
things.
It is nevertheless still
useful to know how the order of procedural steps affects members. Do members do
better following a linear method or a "reach-testing" method? Is
their level of comfort part of the equation?
Hirokawa Study
A study by Hirokawa (1983) relates to this issue. In his experiment, Hirokawa used a coding scheme to analyze task-oriented
discussion of free-discussion decision-making groups. His scheme categorized
decision-making functions, with each category representing a group action. The
coding scheme was as follows:
Category 1 = Analyze the
problem
Category 2 = Establish
evaluation criteria
Category 3 = Generate
alternative solutions
Category 4 = Evaluate
alternative solutions
Category 5 = Establish
operating procedures
Hirokawa first analyzed his test groups
using the scheme above. He then divided the data into phases to discern when
groups performed each function. With some exceptions, the results generally
showed consistent differences among the decision processes of the groups.
Groups that made decisions that Hirokawa judged
"good" followed certain processes; groups that made "bad"
decisions followed other processes. When Hirokawa
divided the group discussions into three stages, he discovered the findings
shown in Table 13.5.
|
Table
13.5 |
|
|
|
Stage |
"Good"
Decision Groups |
"Bad"
Decision Groups |
|
1 |
Categories
1 and 3 |
Categories
3 and 4 |
|
2 |
Categories
3 and 4 |
Categories
1, 3, 4, and 5 |
|
3 |
Categories
1, 3, and 4 |
Categories
3 and 4 |
As you can see, the free
discussion of "good" decision groups more closely approximated the
Reflective Thinking procedure. In particular, the "good" groups
analyzed the problem early in the discussion and evaluated the possible
solutions later. In contrast, the "bad" decision groups first worked
on possible solutions and then went "backward" to establish an operating
procedure and analyze the problem. Finally, they returned to possible
solutions.
Despite these different
results, the "good" and "bad" decision groups had many
similarities. Both kinds of groups generated and evaluated solutions pretty
much throughout their discussions. Thus, the difference in process between the
high- and low-quality groups was not very large. Groups may not have to follow
a linear process strictly in order to make high-quality decisions.
Alternative Version of Reflective Thinking
One can imagine a
version of Reflective Thinking that is not completely linear. Group members
first analyze the problem and determine criteria. They then
"reach-test" through proposal sequences. Each sequence follows
a pattern. Immediately after the members propose a solution, they evaluate it
against the criteria and give it a tentative evaluation.
Scientists would have to
use research to determine whether this alternative method leads to the same
kind of decision quality that the standard version of Reflective Thinking does.
If so, the method might be preferable to the standard procedure because it more
closely resembles free discussion. Group members may find it easier and more
enjoyable to use than the standard method. Hence, they might be more willing to
use it.
Brilhart and Jochem
(1964) conducted research that lends some support to the idea that an
alternative method might work well. In their study, groups used formal
procedures to make decisions. Each procedure was similar to Reflective
Thinking, yet not all were linear methods. The three kinds of procedures were
as follows:
1.
Problem-criteria-proposals-evaluation-decision
2.
Problem-proposals-criteria-evaluation-decision
3.
Problem-proposal/evaluation-decision
As you can see, the first
method was a standard Reflective Thinking procedure, and the second was
different but still a linear method. The third, however, appeared to allow
groups to "reach-test."
The results showed that the
third method led to fewer total proposals and fewer good ones than the other
two. When the researchers looked at decision quality, however, they found no
difference among the procedures. This suggests that, in the end, the order of
stages in a procedure did not matter. A group did not need to follow a strictly
linear pattern to do well. Further, the participants reported that the standard
Reflective Thinking was the least satisfying procedure.
Question 3--Do
Procedures Differ in Overall Effectiveness?
Some procedures could lead
to better group performance than others. In a review of relevant studies, we
found some evidence of such differences (Pavitt,
1993).
The General Procedures
The studies show that the
procedure of "dialectical inquiry" may lead to higher quality
decisions than the method of "devil's advocacy." In addition, both
procedures seem to help groups come to higher quality decisions than Hall and
Watson's consensus rules do, although they take longer to reach these
decisions.
On the other hand, Hall and
Watson's rules fare better when groups perform problem-solving survival games,
such as "Lost on the Moon." Research shows that groups that use the
consensus rules seem to come to more accurate answers than groups that use NGT
although they do so slower.
The Detailed Procedures
Studies that have compared
Reflective Thinking and NGT have not found any differences. The procedures
appear equally effective.
One such study was by
White, Dittrich, and Lang (1980). We discussed it
earlier. It measured the number of times that nurses attempted to implement
their group's decisions. The researchers found that, as far as this variable
was concerned, there was no difference between NGT and the procedure that was
similar to Reflective Thinking.
Jarboe Study
A second study comparing NGT and Reflective Thinking was performed by Jarboe (1988). Earlier, we stated that it was important to
train participants adequately and to motivate them to follow the procedures
well. From studies to date, Jarboe's is the only one
we have good reason to believe included adequate training and motivation. The
participants received a lecture and handout on the procedure. They then watched
a videotaped presentation of a group using the method, and finally they
practiced it under supervision.
Jarboe then had the groups make decisions
about one of two issues, using either Reflective Thinking or NGT. Each issue
was presented in a manner that made it either relatively simple or relatively
complex. The participants were motivated to follow the procedure they were
assigned, because their performances affected their class grades.
Jarboe found that NGT led to a greater
number of proposals than did Reflective Thinking; however, she also found that
the techniques did not differ in other ways. She judged that the methods
produced proposals that were similar in uniqueness and quality. Further, the
two procedures did not differ in regard to member satisfaction. No matter which
method they used, members were equally satisfied regarding their group's
solution, the technique their group used, and their group experience in
general. We need more research in this area, however, before we can make any
general claims about how NGT and Reflective Thinking compare.
Incidentally, Jarboe did more in this study than compare NGT with
Reflective Thinking. In fact, this study was one of the first to respond to Hewes's challenge, as discussed in Chapter 8. Hewes demanded that researchers show that communication has
an effect on output variables over and above the effect of input variables. Jarboe measured various output variables, such as group
productivity and member satisfaction. She also performed content analyses of
group process, using a coding scheme similar to Bales's.
As described above, her input variables included discussion procedure and
complexity of the issue. Jarboe found that she could
most accurately predict output variables if she used the input and process
variables
together. Her predictions were not so
successful if she used either set alone. This can be seen as evidence that
process had an impact on output over and above input.
However, critics can
propose alternative explanations for Jarboe's
findings. Her control of the groups could have influenced individual
decision-making performances. In turn, individual performances would directly
affect task output and member satisfaction. Thus, perhaps group process was not
shown to be the deciding factor.
Question 4--Do
Procedures Differ in Effectiveness in Different Situations?
Earlier, we presented the
idea that the design of procedures could lead to differences in effectiveness
in a given situation. We have, however, little research on this issue. The
research that does exist has focused on NGT. We can summarize these findings to
show the research in this area.
NGT and Research Findings
As we discussed earlier, it
appears that NGT leads to better decision-making performances than free
discussion does. Hence, apparently NGT can help with tasks that do not have
objectively correct answers.
Whether NGT improves the
performance of groups facing tasks that have objectively correct answers is not
clear. For example, findings in studies that have looked at the accuracy of
group rankings on "survival" tasks have differed. Some found that NGT
leads to greater accuracy than free discussion, others found no difference in
accuracy, and still others found that accuracy was greater in free discussion
groups. Further, as we mentioned in our previous section, research has found
that groups that follow Hall and Watson's consensus rules to work on
"survival" tasks have more accurate rankings than groups that use
NGT.
Thus, NGT might not be a
good procedure for groups to use when they work on problem-solving tasks.
Possible Reasons for NGT Findings
We have good reason to argue that these findings make sense. It is
understandable that NGT would be more beneficial in a decision-making situation
than in a survival game situation.
Perhaps the greatest
strength of NGT is the method it outlines for proposal making. Group members
silently generate proposals and then list them in round-robin fashion. This procedure
is important for decision-making tasks. Proposal generation is particularly
crucial for decisions. Therefore, NGT may help groups improve the quality of
their decisions.
In a survival game,
however, proposal generation is unimportant. In a sense, the game has already
supplied the "proposals," in the form of the list of items that the
members must rank. Thus, the group needs only to discuss and evaluate them. For
this reason, NGT may not be as helpful with this kind of task as it is with
decision-making tasks.
Other Procedures
We can look at NGT
research and hypothesize about other procedures. More generally, the design of
procedures may suit some types of decision tasks and not others. Unfortunately,
with the exception of NGT, scientists have done little research concerning when
groups should and should not use particular procedures. For example, there are
no studies that can give us insights into when Reflective Thinking is and is
not helpful.
Question 5--Do
Different People React Differently to the Use of Discussion Procedures?
We have discussed how a
procedure may help in some circumstances and not in others. Likewise, a
procedure could be good for some people and not for others. Personality traits
may affect how people respond to formal discussion procedures.
Preference for Procedural Order
One trait that is possibly
relevant is "preference for procedural order," or "PPO."
PPO is an inherent desire to make decisions in a structured manner rather than
in an unstructured manner. Hirokawa, Ice, and Cook
(1988) found that groups of people who are high in PPO make higher quality
decisions when they use the Reflective Thinking procedure rather than when they
use free discussion. In contrast, groups consisting of members low in PPO make
higher quality decisions using free discussion rather than when they use the
Reflective Thinking procedure.
This suggests that people
who like to make decisions in a structured manner should use formal procedures.
On the other hand, people who do not like using a structured manner to make
decisions should not use a formal procedure.
Communication Apprehension
A second trait that is possibly relevant is "communication
apprehension," or "CA." CA is an inherent fear of communicating
in situations in which others will evaluate one's performance as a
communicator.
As you can recall, this
issue arose when we discussed brainstorming. It is one reason that
brainstorming may not help groups generate proposals as well as methods in
which people generate ideas individually. Individual idea generation includes
methods such as writing proposals on lists individually. In brainstorming,
however, members express their ideas to the group. Despite the rules of
brainstorming, some people may still be anxious that other members of their
group will evaluate them negatively if their proposals seem
"off-the-wall." It follows that people high in CA may be particularly
sensitive in a brainstorming situation. They may be likely to withhold
proposals because they are afraid of negative evaluations.
Thus, high CA people gain a
greater advantage from procedures that use individual proposal generation than
do people who are low in CA (Jablin, 1981).
Applications of Findings
These findings
imply that formal procedures may not be for everyone. Additionally, some
procedures are effective for certain types of people and not effective for
others. Perhaps groups ought to use procedures only when members prefer the
guidance they can offer.
We have discussed studies
that have found no differences in how various procedures affect groups. We have
also discussed studies that show no difference between groups that used
procedures and those that used free discussion. What if these findings have
more to do with the people in the groups than with the procedures? The findings
could mask differences that arose due to different types of people. In other
words, perhaps some types of people make better decisions when they use
Reflective Thinking than when they use NGT. Others may make higher quality
decisions when they use NGT rather than Reflective Thinking. Finally, some
group members may reach better decisions with free discussion than with either
formal procedure.
Conclusion
Existing research on formal
discussion procedures appears problematical. It does not allow us to reach many
conclusions about how procedures affect decision quality and accuracy in
groups. Research has indeed raised more questions than answers.
Nevertheless, even without
research support, scientists can argue in favor of discussion procedures.
Overall, studies have shown that groups that use procedures tend to be more
satisfied with their decisions than free discussion groups are. As a
consequence, such groups are probably also more committed to their decisions
than free discussion groups are.
Further, groups that use
discussion procedures imply that they are committed to democratic decision
making. For example, NGT forces all members to participate equally, regardless
of power and status. Similarly, Reflective Thinking gives an equal opportunity
to all proposals, no matter who made them. Thus, if groups correctly follow
formal discussion agendas, the procedures can be a force for democracy in
decision making. This alone may warrant their use in circumstances in which
people value democracy.
GROUP DECISION SUPPORT
SYSTEMS
Computer Programs to Direct Groups
In Chapter 9, we discussed
computer conferencing. As we stated, computer conferencing has become steadily
more popular in recent years for decision-making groups. In that earlier discussion,
we focused on how people can use computers as a medium. We discussed how
computers can allow people in distant locations to form groups and make
decisions. The distance does not matter.
In some organizational
groups, however, computers are not merely a medium. In these groups, computers
not only allow groups to make decisions, they also direct the groups'
procedures. In other words, these groups do not follow the normal pattern of a
group member leading the group through a formal procedure. Instead, a computer
program leads the group. In this case, the program is called a group decision support system, or
"GDSS."
Electronic
Brainstorming
For example, researchers at
the
Potential Advantages
As we discussed earlier,
one problem with group brainstorming is "production blocking." Due to
the fact that group members must take turns talking, members often forget their
ideas before they have the time to present them verbally to the group. One
advantage of brainstorming with computers is that members can enter their ideas
right when they think of them. They do not have to take turns. Computerized
brainstorming groups have the potential, therefore, to be more productive than
face-to-face brainstorming groups.
Research into Electronic Brainstorming
As we described above,
face-to-face brainstorming leads to far fewer and lower quality proposals than
the silent generation of ideas. Early research implied that this was also the
case for "Electronic Brainstorming." Gallupe,
Bastianutti, and Cooper (1991) asked students to
brainstorm a list of results that would take place if everybody had an extra
thumb on each hand. The students performed this task either alone or in
four-member groups. In addition, the students either worked face-to-face or
used "Electronic Brainstorming," whether or not they were alone.
Researchers compared the
results of the groups and the individuals by adding the results of four
individuals to create same-sized aggregates. When students
worked alone using "Electronic Brainstorming," no other proposals
displayed on their screens. Hence, they could not piggyback on ideas.
For that reason, the researchers expected that the groups that used
"Electronic Brainstorming" would generate more proposals than the
aggregates of four individuals brainstorming through computers. This did not
happen. The use of computers did lead to more proposals than the face-to-face
situations, but the groups that used computers did not produce more proposals
than the same-sized aggregates. Instead, four students brainstorming alone
through computers were as productive as the groups.
Valacich, Dennis, and Connolly (1994) were
not convinced by these findings. As discussed earlier, the reason why nominal
groups are more productive than real groups in brainstorming is because of
production blocking; members are unable to immediately voice their ideas. In
"Electronic Brainstorming group members can type their ideas as soon as
they think of them. As a consequence, production blocking should not be a
problem.
Valacich et al. replicated Gallupe et al.'s study, but in this case using real
brainstorming groups and aggregates as large as 18. As in earlier research,
they found that both the number and quality of proposals increased as the size
of aggregates went up. Unlike
earlier research, the number of quality of proposals also increased as the size
of real brainstorming groups went up. Further, the rate of increase was faster in the real groups than in the
aggregates. As a consequence, small-sized aggregates performed better than
small-sized groups, but large-sized groups performed better than large-sized
aggregates. In Valacich et al.'s data, real groups
became more productive than same-sized aggregates when their size reached about
12 members. Of course, it is difficult to say whether the same effect will work
in other circumstances. Nonetheless, this is the first situation in which
brainstorming has been found to work better than individual idea generation.
Software Aided Meeting
Management
Researchers at the
The results
of this research has been very complex, but a few results are worth
noting. Scientists found that group members who use SAMM tend to have more
conflict and attempt to influence one another more than members who perform the
same procedure face-to-face (Poole, Holmes, & DeSanctis,
1991; Zigurs, Poole, & DeSanctis,
1988). This finding is consistent with what we reported in Chapter 9, that
findings have been similar for groups that use computer conferencing. The
process of groups using SAMM face-to-face tends to more closely approximate the
"linear phase model" (see Chapter 8) than the free-discussion or
computerized SAMM groups, which leads to greater group consensus and member
satisfaction (Poole & Holmes, 1995). One reason for this finding is that computerized
groups seemed to have trouble using SAMM. As a consequence, they spent more
time trying to figure out how the technology works, which takes attention away
from their task (Poole, Holmes, Watson, & DeSanctis,
1993).
It would be interesting if
the
SUMMARY
Researchers have devised
many formal procedures for groups to use when they conduct their discussions.
For many reasons, scientists believe that formal procedures are advantageous
and can improve the decision-making performance of groups. These advantages,
however, are often the very reasons that groups do not adopt the procedures.
For the procedures to work effectively, group members must receive the proper
training and be motivated to follow them.
Some formal procedures are
general, and consist only of guidelines. For example, Hall and Watson proposed
a set of six consensus rules that are designed to help a group reach a mutually
satisfying consensus. "Devil's advocacy" and "dialectical
inquiry" are two other general methods. Their purpose is to help groups
resist premature decisions by forcing group members to examine their basic
assumptions.
Other formal procedures are
extremely detailed. Their design should affect how suitable they are in
different circumstances.
Reflective Thinking is a method that has much of the
give and take of free discussion. Theorists designed Reflective Thinking to
help cohesive groups handle major decisions. These cohesive groups should have
members who can optimize and who feel relatively comfortable with one another.
The Nominal Group Technique is
also used for major decisions; however, it limits conversation among group
members. As a result, it is best for groups that are not particularly cohesive.
It does not truly assume that group members are able to optimize.
Brainstorming is a technique groups can use to
generate ideas. When it is inserted into a process such as the Nominal Group
Technique, it should improve cohesiveness and subsequent decision making. It
does so, however, at the expense of some productivity.
Incrementalism is a satisficing
procedure that is good for making routine decisions.
Researchers have performed
some studies to test the consequences of using formal procedures. Formal
procedures appear to help groups make better decisions than they otherwise
would. What causes this improvement, however, is not clear. It could come about
because of more structured and well-reasoned discussions or because of better
individual decision making on the part of each group member.
Advocates of formal
procedures insist that groups perform the steps in order; however, scientists
are not sure whether the order really matters. Also not clear is whether
procedures differ in terms of how effective they are, although different
methods are likely better in different situations. Personal traits appear to
affect how people like procedures. Some people perform better when they follow
formal procedures than when they engage in free discussion, while other people
do not.
Recently, researchers have
written computer programs to guide people through formal procedures. These
programs allow groups to use formal procedures while they make decisions through
computer conferencing. Research suggests that groups that use computerized
procedures may have more conflict and find it more difficult to make decisions
than groups that use procedures in face-to-face meetings.
In this chapter, we
described only a small sample of the formal procedures that are available.
Readers can find more complete reviews of this topic in Scheidel
and Crowell (1979) and Nutt (1984).