1. GROUP DECISION MAKING ADVANTAGES BROAD REPRESENTATION TAPS EXPERTISE MORE IDEAS GENERATED EVALUATION OF OPTIONS COORDINATION HIGH ACCEPTANCE DISADVANTAGES TIME CONSUMING POSSIBLE INDECISIVENESS COMPROMISE DECISIONS DOMINATION BY A MEMBER RISKY SHIFTS GROUPTHINK

2. GROUP DECISION MAKING ISSUES VROOM & YETTON (73) TIME AVAILABILITY TYPE OF PROBLEM OR TASK AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION NEED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DECISION LEVEL OF TRUST CAPABILITIES OF SUBORDINATES LIKELIHIID OF CONFLICT

3. PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING VROOM & YETTON (73) LEADERS HAVE THREE DECISION MAKING STYLES AUTOCRATIC CONSULTIVE PARTICIPATIVE FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF STYLE: 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROBLEM HOW IMPORTANT IS THE QUALITY OF THE DECISION? IS THE PROBLEM WELL-STRUCTUERED? IS TIME CRITICAL? HOW IMPORTANT IS SUBORDINATE COMMITMENT TO THE CHOICE? 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MANAGER DOES THE LEADER HAVE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE? 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBORDINATES WILL SUBORDINATES ACCEPT THE LEADER’S DECISION? DO SUBORDINATES SHARE THE ORGANIZATION’S GOALS? IS CONFLICT LIKELY AMONG SUBORDINATES (OVER THE CHOICES)? CAN THEY CONTRIBUTE GOOD INFORMATION TO MAKE THE CHOICE?

4. VROOM’S DECISION STYLES A1 YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF, WITH YOUR OWN INFORMATION A2 YOU OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM YOUR SUBORDINATES, THEN SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF C1 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES INDIVIDUALLY, WITHOUT BRINGING THEM TOGETHER AS A GROUP. YOU CONSIDER THEIR IDEAS, THEN MAKE THE DECISION BY YOURSELF C2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A GROUP, COLLECTIVELY GETTING THEIR IDEAS, THEN YOU MAKE THE DECISION BY YOURSELF G2 YOU SHARE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES AS A GROUP. TOGETHER YOU ATTEMPT TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON A SOLUTION. YOUR ROLE IS CHAIR, AND THE GROUP’S SOLUTION SHOULD BE THE ONE IMPLEMENTED

5. DEFECTS IN GROUP DECISION MAKING DISCUSSION LIMITED TO A FEW ALTERNATIVES (ONE OR TWO) FAILURE TO REEXAMINE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR WEAKNESSES AND POTENTIAL RISKS NO SEARCH TO FIND ADVANTAGES FOR OTHER ALTERNATIVES, AND NO SEARCH FOR WAYS TO MAKE OTHER OPTIONS FEASIBLE LITTLE OR NO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN EXPERT OR OUTSIDE ADVICE A TENDENCY TO IGNORE FACTS AND OPINIONS THAT DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PREFERRED PLAN OF ACTION NO CONTINGENCY PLANS ESTABLISHED IN CASE SOMETHING GOES WRONG NO ATTEMPT TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION FROM A CONTRARY OR ANTAGONISTIC VIEWPOINT LAUGHING AT DANGER SIGNALS; MAKING LIGHT OF INDICATIONS THAT ALL IS NOT PROCEEDING SMOOTHLY LEADERS WHO DOMINATE DISCUSSIONS AND MAKE THEIR SUGGESTIONS EARLY, BEFORE OTHERS HAVE HAD THEIR SAY

6. SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK JANIS (72) A VERY COHESIVE GROUP THAT IS LIKELY TO MAKE POOR DECISIONS OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY (Superiority) ILLUSION OF MORALITY CLOSEMINDEDNESS RATIONALIZATION (Discounting Warning Signs) STEREOTYPED VIEWS OF OUTSIDERS (Not Trusted & Not Very Smart) PRESSURE TOWARD CONFORMITY SELF-CENSORSHIP OF MEMBERS DIRECT PRESSURE APPLIED TO DEVIANTS MINDGUARDS (Don’t Let Others/outsiders Influence Us) ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY (Silence Means Agreement?)

7. REMEDIES FOR GROUPTHINK ASSIGN EVERYONE THE ROLE OF CRITICAL EVALUATOR SENSITIZATION LEADER MUST BE IMPARTIAL DO NOT INITIALLY STATE YOUR PREFERENCES APPOINT AN INTERNAL “DEVIL’S ADVOCATE” USE OUTSIDE EXPERTS TO CHALLENGE THE GROUP THEY MAY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO DO DIVIDE INTO TWO OR MORE SUBGROUPS TO WORK INDEPENDENTLY ON THE SAME PROBLEM HAVE EACH GROUP REPORT BACK HOLD “SECOND CHANCE” MEETINGS TO REAFFIRM EARLIER THINKING AND DECISIONS HAVE A “CONFIRMATION” VOTE LATER

8. BRAINSTORMING USED TO GENERATE NEW IDEAS OR ALTERNATIVES RULES: FREEWHEELING IS WELCOME --- OFFER ANY IDEAS THAT COME TO YOU QUANTITY IS DESIRED --- DON’T WORRY ABOUT QUALITY OR RISK RIGHT NOW NO CRITICISM OR PRAISE OF IDEAS IS ALLOWED NO QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION OF IDEAS --- THAT WILL COME AT A LATER MEETING COMBINATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF IDEAS IS ENCOURAGED --- BUILD ON OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS

9. NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE EACH MEMBER GENERATES A LIST OF THEIR IDEAS AHEAD OF TIME IDEAS ARE SHARED WITH MEMBERS EITHER AS AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, OR ARE PRESENTED ONE AT A TIME WITHOUT COMMENT MEMBERS VOTE BY SECRET BALLOT TO SELECT THE “BEST” IDEAS WHICH THEY WANT TO PURSUE FURTHER EACH ITEM IS DISCUSSED AND EVALUATED PUBLICLY (Pros and Cons) FINAL VOTES ARE TAKEN BY SECRET BALLOT REDUCES THE EFFECTS OF POWER AND STATUS DIFFERENCES ALL MEMBERS CAN PARTICIPATE AND GET THEIR IDEAS BEFORE THE GROUP MEMBERS ARE NOT INTIMIDATED BY A DOMINANT MEMBER

10. DELPHI TECHNIQUE CAN PROBE THE VIEWS OF INDUSTRY EXPERTS MATRERIALS SENT TO PARTICIPANTS FOR REACTIONS OPTIONS ARE INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN AND SENT BACK SUMMARIES ARE SENT OUT FOR FURTHER COMMENT ROLE OF THE IN-HOUSE COORDINATOR IS CRUCIAL THE “GROUP” NEVER MEETS TOGETHER NO FINAL DECISIONS ARE “MADE” BY THIS GROUP THIS IS A “VIRTUAL GROUP” WHICH CAN BE INTERNET CONNECTED PROCESS GATHERS THE BEST THINKING & JUDGMENT OF EXPERTS SUCCESSIVE FEEDBACK REDEFINES AND FOCUSES IDEAS FINAL DECISIONS ARE MADE BY COMPANY OFFICIALS, NOT THE GROUP