Search results

Among the many influences on group decision making efficacy that have been identified by group researchers, the process that a group follows in arriving at a decision is widely regarded as one of the most important. This chapter reviews the research on group decision making processes for the purpose of explicating (a) the nature of group process, (b) the factors that influence group process, (c) the role that communication plays in group process, and (d) the influence of group process on decision making efficacy. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the group decision-making process unfolds over time in a transorganizational system (TS) planning change.

A longitudinal qualitative case study was designed to enable researchers to identify different stages in the group decision-making process.

The findings from this case study indicated that the group decision-making process in a TS planning change could be conceptualized to include five distinct steps: working in solitude; starting a dialogue; finding a common goal; suggesting decision alternatives; and deciding among alternatives. The group proceeded through these steps sequentially over time.

The paper offers TS practitioners a framework to follow when making group decisions within TSs.

The study develops a conceptual framework that describes how the group decision-making process unfolds over time in a TS planning change. This framework can be tested in other contexts and advance theory in both the TS and group decision-making areas.

Little research has been done on the impact of social decision schemes on group process variables. Green and Taber created a self‐report scale to provide five measures of the group process. These measures deal with the descriptions of an individual’s behaviour as well as others’ behaviour towards a specific person. The items within each measure also probe evaluative ratings of several specific group processes and outcomes. Evaluates the relationship between the process variables and a dependent performance variable ‐ the profit achieved by groups in a marketing simulation game ‐ in an attempt to shed further light on the group process in strategic marketing decision making. A factor analysis reveals a reasonably close concurrence of the experimental data and that of the Green and Taber instrument, leading to the conclusion that the two sets of data were of a similar structure. Attempts to establish a relationship between the Green and Taber process variables and profit. Concludes that negative socio‐emotional behaviour and solution satisfaction are positively related to group success. Therefore, the opportunities for negative socio‐emotional behaviours such as rejecting others’ positions, arguing and criticizing seem to be worthy of exploration. Since solution satisfaction returned a significant regression, finds that the give‐and‐take arguments of socio‐emotional behaviour contributed to solution satisfaction.

Presents an argument for the use of group decision support systems (GDSS) in the promotion of organizational learning. The combination of reflection, analysis, and openness that such systems encourage is postulated to encourage the learning process. Discusses problems associated with power, information loss, and cultural knowledge. Sets out a view of organizational learning which emphasizes that learning can occur at the organizational level through processes.

Managers must make numerous strategic decisions in order to initiate and implement a business model innovation (BMI). This paper examines how managers perceive the management team interacts when making BMI decisions. The paper also investigates how group biases and board members’ risk willingness affect this process.

Empirical data were collected through 26 in-depth interviews with German managing directors from 13 companies in four industries (mobility, manufacturing, healthcare and energy) to explore three research questions: (1) What group effects are prevalent in BMI group decision-making? (2) What are the key characteristics of BMI group decisions? And (3) what are the potential relationships between BMI group decision-making and managers' risk willingness? A thematic analysis based on Gioia's guidelines was conducted to identify themes in the comprehensive dataset.

First, the results show four typical group biases in BMI group decisions: Groupthink, social influence, hidden profile and group polarization. Findings show that the hidden profile paradigm and groupthink theory are essential in the context of BMI decisions. Second, we developed a BMI decision matrix, including the following key characteristics of BMI group decision-making managerial cohesion, conflict readiness and information- and emotion-based decision behavior. Third, in contrast to previous literature, we found that individual risk aversion can improve the quality of BMI decisions.

This paper provides managers with an opportunity to become aware of group biases that may impede their strategic BMI decisions. Specifically, it points out that managers should consider the key cognitive constraints due to their interactions when making BMI decisions. This work also highlights the importance of risk-averse decision-makers on boards.

This qualitative study contributes to the literature on decision-making by revealing key cognitive group biases in strategic decision-making. This study also enriches the behavioral science research stream of the BMI literature by attributing a critical influence on the quality of BMI decisions to managers' group interactions. In addition, this article provides new perspectives on managers' risk aversion in strategic decision-making.

A proposal in favor of a meta-theoretical approach to the study of group communication is advanced, which offers novel questions on group communication scholarship: the study of the bounded rationality of groups and teams. The chapter focuses on methodological implications of the bounded rationality perspective for group communication research. The notion of bounded rationality comes with an invitation to analyze group communication from the vantage point of an adaptation process that involves the communication processes that are employed by groups along with characteristics of the environments in which groups are situated. The general concept of bounded rationality is introduced and several promises that this meta-theoretical lens offers to group communication scholarship are described. Three methodological signature characteristics are highlighted: the development and test of process models, the analysis and description of the ecological and social environments of groups, and the development of representative designs in the study of groups.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of three important group process variables, namely, agreement-seeking behavior, group trust, and cognitive diversity, on decision outcomes. In addition, it seeks to examine the role of process conflict as a moderator in the relationship between agreement-seeking behavior and team effectiveness; agreement-seeking behavior and decision commitment; cognitive diversity and team effectiveness; and cognitive diversity and decision commitment.

Using a structured survey instrument, this paper gathered data from 160 students enrolled in a strategic management capstone course that features strategic decision making in a simulated business strategy game. The data from 41 teams were collected from the student population using a carefully administered instrument, and the data were aggregated only after appropriate inter-rater agreement tests were run.

Results show that the group process variables are positively related to decision outcomes. The data support the view that process conflict acts as a moderator in the relationship between agreement-seeking behavior and team effectiveness and decision commitment. Further, the results support that cognitive diversity has a positive impact on decision commitment and team effectiveness. Process conflict, which acts as a deterrent, is outweighed by the presence of agreement-seeking behavior.

Since the present research is based on self-report measures, the limitations of social desirability bias and common method bias are inherent. However, sufficient care is taken to minimize these limitations. The research has implications for both the conflict management and strategic decision-making process literatures.

This study contributes to both practicing managers and the strategic management literature. The study suggests that administrators should select those teams who are prone to agreement-seeking behavior; and team members who trust one another. Administrators need not unduly avoid process conflict because diversity in opinions and thinking and agreement-seeking behavior outweigh the negative effects of process conflict.

The findings from the study will be useful for creating congenial social environment in the organizations.

This study provides new insights about the previously unknown effects of process conflict in strategic decision-making process.

Organization development is focused on implementing a planned process of positive humanistic change in organizations through the use of social science theory, action research, and data-based feedback methods. The role of personality in that change process, however, has historically been ignored or relegated to a limited set of interventions. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a conceptual overview of the linkages between personality and OD, discuss the current state of personality in the field including key trends in talent management, and offer a new multi-level framework for conceptualizing applications of personality for different types of OD efforts. The chapter concludes with implications for research and practice.

This paper aims to investigate a double puzzle, empirical and theoretical. Empirically, can the authors document the influence of groups on financial decisions in investments and trading? Theoretically, if decisions in a group context can be documented, how can we account for them, against the background of the normative models, according to which financial decisions are individualized and atomized? Based on interviews and ethnographic observations with fund managers, analysts and traders, the authors document here decision-making in finance. Theoretically, the authors argue that financial decisions can be explained if, in addition to cognitive processes, the authors take into account the impact of social interactions on the decision-making process. Social interactions are not restricted to imitation processes, and can be seen here as the efforts deployed by decision-makers at maintaining and managing the context of their decisions. The authors present and discuss empirical evidence and argue that the study of social interactions can productively contribute to understanding how decisions are made in finance.

The data analyzed here have been gathered between 2001 and 2011, and include: interviews with investment professionals (fund managers and analysts) from the UK and Turkey; interviews with individual investors from the UK and the USA; and observations with individual investors from the UK and the USA. This captures decision activities conducted in different regulatory frameworks of those countries. The authors focussed in the interviews on general decision-making practices.

Conclusion the authors have sought to answer a double puzzle, empirical and theoretical. Empirically, the puzzle is how investors and traders resort to groups in their decision-making. Theoretically, the puzzle consists not only in providing an explanation for such processes but also in taking into account that they do not fit the normative models of decisions in mainstream finance. The argument has been that in addition to the cognitive processes identified and discussed in behavioural finance, the authors need to take into account the impact of social processes as well. Social processes include the efforts deployed by financial decision-makers at maintaining and managing the contexts within which decisions are made. The work of context maintenance is intrinsic to the logic of decision-making. The authors have identified, documented and discussed here the social dynamics in financial decisions with respect to performance, managing group relationships and possible conflicts.

Managing relationships within groups is not without consequences with regard to trading decisions. Oftentimes, avoiding group conflicts – or being confronted with them – leads to decisional adjustments, which have less to do with returns on trades than with the necessity of accommodating social relationships. As several of the interviewees emphasized, making decisions implies consensus and reaching consensus requires accommodating relationships.

There has been concern expressed in the financial press and focus established in the accounting literature over rising levels of executive compensation. Individuals on the compensation committee, a sub-committee of the board of directors, collectively determine executive compensation and are responsible for maintaining the pay-for-performance standard, a concept that warrants further attention. This study examines the process of exaggeration of a group decision over individual beliefs and the impact of leadership upon a committee's outcome when making compensation awards. In an experiment with 98 subjects role-playing as compensation committee members, results show that in a committee of individuals where a coterie and a majority belief is present, group polarization occurs and the compensation results are exaggerated as compared to individual beliefs. The findings also suggest, though, that the appointment of a leader as chair of the committee, either in the majority or minority view, has a moderating effect on the group outcome. These results highlight and add to the literature the potential for agency costs in the group decision process that may be found in the executive compensation-setting environment.