1. Managing Decision-Making Processes: Debate and Buy-in MIIC April 20, 2009 Prof. Morten Hansen

2. Consensus: 1) Debate one solution 2) Strive for unanimity and harmony Devil’s advocacy: 1) First sub-group develops a solution 2) Second sub-group criticizes the developed solution 3) First sub-groups modifies solution in response to criticism Dialectical inquiry: 1) First sub-group develops a solution 2) Second sub-group develops an alternative solution 3) The two sub-groups come together and develop a joint solution Three ways of designing conflict into the decision making process

3. CONSENSUS BenefitsDownsides Most managers use this method regularly and feel somewhat comfortable with it Entails lower opportunity costs for participants: time, experience, training Generates greater group harmony which may have a beneficial impact on implementation and other future group interaction May be more appropriate for structured and/or routine tasks with sufficient data and clear alternatives Does not uncover as many new alternatives, assumptions, and perspectives; less innovation May lead to premature agreement or convergence on a single alternative Sometimes leads to the suppression of dissent, especially as a majority opinion emerges. Risk of groupthink. Generates lower levels of critical evaluation Decision Process Comparison

4. DIALECTICAL INQUIRY / DEVIL’S ADVOCACY BenefitsDownsides Generates multiple alternatives; more innovative ideas Explicitly outlines the supporting argument for a particular alternative (assumptions, facts) Leads to considerable critical evaluation. Avoids early convergence on single alternative Fosters a high level of individual understanding of the final decision Does not force individuals to stand alone as dissenters/critical evaluators May be quite appropriate for ill-structured tasks May adversely impact group harmony, decision acceptance, and implementation Entails opportunity costs for participants: time, experience, training Subgroups may generate “safe” alternatives knowing that others will closely scrutinize their proposals DI: synthesis of opposing alternatives may lead to mediocre compromise DA: process may focus too much on destroying a particular alternative, rather than constructing other viable courses of action Decision Process Comparison

5. Cognitive Conflict: Generally task oriented and focused on judgmental differences about how to best achieve common objectives Affective Conflict: Tends to be emotional and focused on personal incompatibilities or disputes Source: Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict” Decision making process design leads to two types of conflict

6. Assessing the Level of Conflict: Cognitive: 3.How many disagreements over different ideas about this decision were there? 4.How many differences about the content of this decision did the group have to work through? Affective: 5. How much personal friction surfaced within the group during the decision making process? 6.How many personality clashes became evident during the decision making process? Source: Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict” Two types of conflict assessed in decision making exercise Note: Question numbers refer to survey questions in exercise

7. D/I and D/A tend to create more conflict ConsensusDialectical inquiry Devil ’ s advocacy Cognitive conflict Low/moderateHigh Affective conflict LowHigh/moderate

8. Data from exercise: more conflict in D/I and D/A Cognitive Conflict 3. How many disagreements over different ideas about this decision were there? 3.64.6+1.0 4. How many differences about the content of this decision did the group have to work through? 4.15.3+1.2 Affective Conflict 5. How much personal friction surfaced within the group during the decision making process? 2.43.3+0.9 6. How many personality clashes became evident during the decision making process? 2.02.9+0.9 ConsensusD/A & D/I Difference Average reported Level* *) Scale: from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high)Source: MIIC exercise April 2009

9. Cognitive conflict associated with more critical analysis Q3 vs. Q7: cognitive conflict and critical evaluation of initial assumptions +0.48 Q3 vs. q8: cognitive conflict and uncovering of valid assumptions, recommendations +0.53

10. However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group Q6 vs. Q11: personality clashes vs. willingness to implement decision -0.41 Q5 vs. Q 11: personal friction vs. willingness to implement decision -0.47 Q6 vs. Q9: personality clashes vs. enjoying working with this group -0.20 Q5 vs. Q9: personal friction vs. enjoying working with this group -0.14

11. Problem is, cognitive and affective conflicts tend to go hand-in-hand Q3 vs. Q5: disagreements over ideas vs. personal friction +0.38 Q3 vs. Q6: disagreements over ideas vs. personality clashes +0.36 Q4 vs. Q5: Differences about the content vs. personal friction +0.45 Q4 vs. Q6: Differences about the content vs. personality clashes +0.35

12. Use DI or DA to stimulate debate Stimulate conflict and debate Dialectical inquiry Devil ’ s advocacy + +

13. Benefit from cognitive conflict Stimulate conflict and debate Cognitive conflict Debate alternatives, Deep analysis, New ideas Better decisions +++ Dialectical inquiry Devil ’ s advocacy + + 0.48/0.53 Note: numbers are correlations from MIIC data April 2009

14. … but also increases affective conflict Stimulate conflict and debate Cognitive conflict Affective Conflict Debate alternatives, Deep analysis, New ideas Better decisions + +++ Dialectical inquiry Devil ’ s advocacy + + 0.38 to 0.45 0.48/0.53 Note: numbers are correlations from MIIC data April 2009

15. Sum: Key is to increase cognitive and decrease affective conflicts Stimulate conflict and debate Cognitive conflict Affective Conflict Personal animosity, Less group harmony, Poor decision acceptance Debate alternatives, Deep analysis, New ideas Better decisions Poor implementation + + + + ++ Dialectical inquiry Devil ’ s advocacy + + Key is to break this path 0.38 to 0.45 -0.14 to – 0.47 Note: numbers are correlations from MIIC data April 2009 0.48/0.53

16. Additional data from another student group, INSEAD MBAs (n=110) This is a larger group so more validity. The conclusions are very similar

17. Data from exercise today: more conflict in D/I and D/A 3. How many disagreements over different ideas about this decision were there? 2.73.33.5 4. How many differences about the content of this decision did the group have to work through? 2.83.33.4 5. How much personal friction surfaced within the group during the decision making process? 1.61.92.2 6. How many personality clashes became evident during the decision making process? 1.61.9 Consensus Dial. Inq.Dev. Adv. Average reported Level* *) Scale: from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high)

18. Cognitive conflict in D/A and D/I associated with critical evaluation Evaluating assumptions New recommendations/assumptions

19. However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group Q6 vs. Q11: personality clashes vs. willingness to implement decision -0.17 Q5 vs. Q 11: personal friction vs. willingness to implement decision -0.26 Q6 vs. Q9: personality clashes vs. enjoying working with this group -0.44 Q5 vs. Q9: personal friction vs. enjoying working with this group -0.29

20. Problem is, affective and cognitive conflict correlated

21. Best spot: high cognitive, low affective