- We are going to talk about methods
that leaders and members of groups
can use to make good decisions.
We're talking about the top seven,
some are better than others,
and we're working out of Beebe and Masterson's book
on "Communicating in Small Groups."
I'll put a link to that in the description below.
So let's get into the details.
So let's talk about some overall considerations.
It's best, when you're working in groups,
to spell out the decision-making process ahead of time
so everybody understands the roadmap.
You don't want people confused
about what method of decision making you're using,
because it can cause the group to be very ineffective
and maybe even cause some unnecessary stress.
Randy Hirokawa who is a researcher
and professor at the University of Hawaii in Hilo
has been researching group decision-making for years,
and his research shows that when groups
have an explicit process they follow
that they spell out for everybody,
the groups end up making more effective decisions.
So knowing the various methods will help leaders and members
be more effective in identifying the best process
in any given situation.
So let's go to number one.
Number one is decision by an expert inside the group.
So sometimes as an internal member of the group
who's an expert,
or has a particular experience or knowledge base
on an issue,
and the group will often look to that person
for an extra perspective that they would not have themselves
and will often then defer to that person,
turn to that person to make the choice.
I was in a group once to where the discussion
was swirling for a while,
the topic was on energy and innovation.
And after a while, one of the guys spoke up and said,
"You know, I used to work in an energy company,
"I did my research in graduate school
"on energy and alternatives."
And everyone was like,
"Oh, well, why don't you tell us what's going on?"
You could see his expertise there
carry a lot of extra weight
all of a sudden in the discussion.
This can be a really efficient approach,
but the group should still fully discuss the issue
because you risk being dissatisfied with the outcome
if you don't have a full discussion.
So the expert doesn't just instantly make the decision,
you listen to the expert,
consider what the expert has to say,
and then ultimately the group makes the decision together
based upon that.
Number two, decision by an expert outside of the group.
This is exactly the same,
but sometimes issues
fall outside of the group members' knowledge and experience
in ways that they can't make,
or they're unwilling to make a decision.
So they will ask an expert, but someone from outside.
So this is where consultants often come in.
Academic consultants, professional consultants.
They will request that expert help,
that outside help to help then take that advice
and then the group can make a decision themselves.
So the expert is not the decider, the group is decider,
but they're getting that advice
from the person outside to inform the group's decision.
And this can work,
but it sometimes can give up that decision-making influence,
and the group may lose valuable insight
from its group members
if they don't allow a full discussion beforehand
before deciding.
Number three,
averaging individual rankings or ratings.
So I've used this one.
This is where individual group members
are asked to rank or rate
possible alternatives or solutions.
So let's say you are a hiring committee
and you have to choose
between five different job candidates
and they all might look pretty good on the surface.
Everybody might feel like,
"Okay, I can see them all working here."
One way to do that is to have each individual member
on the team rank them.
Let's say from one to five, secretly, right?
And then they end up sharing their scores
and totaling up the scores to see who has the best score,
or if you're working on another kind of solution,
maybe it's not about hiring people,
it's another kind of alternative solution,
what option comes to the top of the pile
when it comes to everybody's
individual rankings and ratings?
Now this is not necessarily
a great way to make a final decision.
You're not bound to the results,
but you could say, "Why don't we do this?
"Why don't we rank and rate our alternatives here?
"See which ones come near the top,
"which ones go near the bottom."
And it sometimes is a way to simplify the process,
like the group might all agree
that one or two of the alternatives
just shouldn't move forward,
but there are another two or three that are the best ones.
So the group can leave the lower options behind
and continue to talk about the higher rated options.
So it's a good way to get a discussion going,
not a great way to routinely use to make a final decision.
Number four is a random choice.
This is not really a good one,
but for a variety of reasons,
groups will sometimes get stuck.
Maybe they're not able to make a choice
through some logical and thorough process.
So random choices where the group resorts
to doing things like flipping a coin
or picking a number or some other way
to just randomly pick an alternative.
I've seen this used in groups
because sometimes the decision is just not that important.
And people are like,
"You know, I really don't care what we do.
"It doesn't seem to have a big impact.
"So why don't we just pick one?
"Who cares?
"Pick one and let's move on to more important priorities."
It's not a good way to make meaningful decisions, however,
so don't just, obviously, if you're in a group,
don't just resort to flipping coins
when you're talking about something important.
Number five, majority rule.
This is where more than 50% of the members agree,
so a statistical majority.
This is often done by voting in some way.
It could be a show of hands, yays or nays,
it could be by secret ballot.
It's a very commonly used method.
It can be efficient,
but it can leave voters in the minority,
the less than 50%, very dissatisfied,
and it can lead to unintended alliances over time.
So you see this on reality shows
and you certainly see it in politics.
Sometimes where there's a group that will come together,
that wouldn't ordinarily agree,
but they come together in a particular decision
because they want to form a majority for whatever reason
and vote for that.
And then they get their way.
And that can often, in the long run,
if you use this over and over again,
create a lot of friction
because people will end up grouping up
and forming alliances,
not really based upon the quality of the decision,
but they'll do it based
upon trading votes and office politics.
So it can turn a little sticky, a little toxic.
And it can sacrifice decision-making quality
and long-term cohesiveness for the sake
of getting any particular decision pushed through.
Number six, decision by minority.
This is even worse.
So sometimes a minority of group members,
less than 50% will make the decision.
Essentially, they might be the most vocal, most dominant,
they might rush a decision through
before people can fully consider it.
They might create potential problems
in order to get their way.
And sometimes they'll even use very strategic communication
to frame an issue like you have to choose it.
They might say, propose their solution really quickly,
and then challenge group members
and say, "Does anybody have any objections?"
In other words, here's what we should do, any objections?
And they might not give people enough time to process it,
and now if they're speaking up, they might say,
"Is that a problem?"
So now if I speak up, I'm talking about,
"Yeah, I have a problem."
It can really frame things in a negative way,
where in a positive way you could say,
"What are the other alternatives?"
And get other voices in the mix.
But if you frame any other voices
speaking up as you're about to talk about our problem,
then that can be really a manipulative way
to push a decision through.
This is even worse than decision by a majority,
because most of the people will be dissatisfied
with this decision and you might win the battle as they say,
but lose the war.
So yeah, you might push one decision through,
but it's gonna cause a lot of resentment in the long run.
So what you should do of course
is use some of these other alternatives.
This is not a good one,
I would put this even worse than random choice
because there are much more hurt feelings
when you make decisions by minority.
And number seven is kind of the gold standard decision
by consensus.
When this is done well, it's considered to be an ideal.
That's when all group members
can support a course of action.
So it takes time and effort,
but it often leads to high quality decisions
because group members have to express their point of view,
listen carefully, emphasize areas of agreement,
combine and/or eliminate alternatives.
And that's a very thorough process
where people are really voicing their opinions
to finally arrive at a widespread agreement
among all group members.
This doesn't always happen,
but often through the discussion,
you'll have a fallback position called the super majority
where that's 2/3 or more of the group agrees on a direction.
So you might have most of the group,
a overwhelming majority supporting a direction
where you have one or two holdouts for various reasons.
I have often found that even a super majority
is a pretty good way to make decisions.
It'll sometimes come down to those one or two people
who still disagree to saying,
"Well, you know what, I said my piece,
"I feel like I've been heard.
"I don't agree that this is the best choice,
"but if that's what the group says,
"then I'm willing to go along with it."
You often hear people say some version of that
when you have a super majority, almost everybody agrees.
That's a pretty good place to be for many decisions.
You also have to be aware of group think, however.
Let's say you're pushing for consensus
and you're like, "Let's all agree, let's all agree."
Some people may not want to disagree
because they don't want to fracture
that harmony and cohesiveness.
They might think something different
and totally disagree in their mind,
but not want to voice it
because everybody's very concerned
about maintaining group cohesion.
So you have to be careful and make it a safe enough group
so that people can disagree respectfully
and voice their opinions and be heard
without fear of causing all kinds of problems
if there's some kind of disagreement.
So some overall takeaways, strive for a genuine consensus,
not hyper consensus, not group think.
Allow for plenty of discussion
to get all the issues on the table,
encourage high levels of participation
from all group members so everybody is heard.
And then discuss the advantages and disadvantages
of options fully
so everybody knows what they're getting into.
And ultimately we won't agree 100% of the time,
but group members will feel valued and respected
if the decision-making process was handled well.
So question of the day,
which of these alternatives do you like the best
for group leadership, group membership,
and group decision-making?
I would love to hear your comments
in that section below the video.
I look forward to reading them there.
Thanks, take care, see you soon.