’’GROUP DECISION MAKING ’’
Presentation on project
Rishi kumar vyas
ROOTS OF GROUP DECISION MAKING - 1978
Herbert Alexander Simon (June 15, 1916 – February 9, 2001)
Simon was among the founding fathers of several of today's
important scientific domains, including artificial intelligence,
information processing, decision-making, problem-solving,
attention economics, organization theory, AND complex systems.
He receive the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics "for his
pioneering research into the decision-making process within
economic organizations" (1978).
GROUP DECISION MAKING An Overview
It is a situation faced when individuals
collectively make a choice from the alternatives
Decisions made collectively tend to be more
effective than decisions made by a single
individual. However, there are also examples
where the decisions made by a group are
Bay of Pigs invasion
Factors that impact group behaviors also affect
group decisions. Like:
2. Dominative character
4. limited time
5. Facts and figures
6. Economical condition
7. Financial constraints
GROUP DECISION MAKING TECHNIQUES
This technique involves a group of people, usually between five and ten,
sitting around a table, generating ideas in the form of free association. The
primary focus is on generation of ideas rather them on evaluation of ideas.
Brainstorming technique is very effective when the problem is
ii. Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
Nominal group technique is similar to brainstorming except that the
approach is more structured. Members form the group in name only and
operate independently, generating ideas for solving the problem on their
own, in silence and in writing. Members do not interact with each other so
that strong personality domination is avoided. It encourages individual
iii. Delphi Technique:
This technique is the modification of the nominal group technique
1. The problem is identified and a sample of experts is selected.
These experts are asked to provide potential solutions through a
series of carefully designed questionnaires.
2. Each expert completes and returns the initial questionnaire.
3. The results of the questionnaire are compiled at a central location
and the central coordinator prepares a second questionnaire based
on the previous answers.
4. Each member receives a copy of the results along with the second
5. Members are asked to review the results and respond to second
questionnaire. The results typically trigger new solutions or cause
changes in the original position.
6. The process is repeated until a consensus is reached.
iv. Didactic interaction:
This technique is applicable only in certain situations, but is an
excellent method when such a situation exists. The type of problem
should be such that it results in a yes-no solution. For example, the
decision may be to buy or not to buy, to merge or not to merge, to
expand or not to expand and so on. Such a decision requires an
extensive and exhaustive discussion and investigation since a wrong
decision can have serious consequences.
Decision-making in social settings
Decision-making in groups is sometimes examined separately as process
and outcome. Process refers to the group interactions.
The use of politics is often judged negatively, but it is a useful way to
approach problems when preferences among actors are in conflict.
There are no perfect decision-making rules. Depending on how the rules are
implemented in practice and the situation, all of these can lead to situations
where either no decision is made, or to situations where decisions made are
inconsistent with one another over time.
Social decision schemes
Social decision schemes are the methods used by a group to combine individual response
to come up with a single group decision. There are a number of these schemes, but the
following are the most common:
An individual, subgroup or external party makes the decision on behalf of the group. For
instance, in an "authority scheme", the leader makes the decision.
Group member makes their own independent decision, later "averaged" to produce a decis
Group members vote on their preferences, either privately or publicly. These votes are the
used to select a decision, either by simple majority, supermajority or other more or less
complicated voting system.
A consensus scheme whereby the group discusses the issue until it reaches a unanimous
agreement. This decision rule is what dictates the decision-making for most juries.
The group leaves the choice to chance. For example, flipping a coin.
DECISION MAKING IN CORPORATES
Individual Decision Making
Decision making without a group's input or a decision made regardless of the
group's opinion is, naturally, an individual decision. This is the more traditional
decision making approach and can work effectively for a manager when the
group's input is not required or in certain cases, desired.
Group Decision Making
There are several models of group decision making that you can put to use.
Two examples are consensus and consultation. Consensus decision making
involves posing several options to the group and using the most popular option
to make a decision.
Consultation takes the opinions of the group into consideration when making a
decision. Both methods require the group's participation and call for a manager
who respects the opinions and input of the group in the decision making
Advantages of Group Decision Making
Group decision making provides two advantages over decisions made by individuals:
synergy and sharing of information.
Synergy is the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When a group
makes a decision collectively, its judgment can be keener than that of any of its
members. Through discussion, questioning, and collaboration, group members can
identify more complete and robust solutions and recommendations.
The sharing of information among group members is another advantage of the group
decision-making process. Group decisions take into account a broader scope of
information since each group member may contribute unique information and
expertise. Sharing information can increase understanding, clarify issues, and
facilitate movement toward a collective decision.
Disadvantages of Group Decision Making
1. Diffusion of Responsibility
One possible disadvantage of group decision making is that it can create a diffusion of
responsibility that results in a lack of accountability for outcomes. In a sense, if everyone
is responsible for a decision, then no one is. Moreover, group decisions can make it
easier for members to deny personal responsibility and blame others for bad decisions.
2. Lower Efficiency
Group decisions can also be less efficient than those made by an individual. Group
decisions can take additional time because there is the requirement of participation,
discussion, and coordination among group members. Without good facilitation and
structure, meetings can get bogged down in trivial details that may matter a lot to one
person but not to the others.
One of the greatest inhibitors of effective group decision making is groupthink.
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of
people in which the desire for harmony or conformity results in an irrational or
dysfunctional decision-making outcome. By isolating themselves from outside
influences and actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints in the interest of
minimizing conflict, group members reach a consensus decision without critical
evaluation of alternative viewpoints.
Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or
alternative solutions, and there is a loss of individual creativity, uniqueness,
and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the in-group
produces an illusion of invulnerability (an inflated certainty that the right
decision has been made). Thus the in-group significantly overrates its own
decision-making abilities and significantly underrates the abilities of its
opponents (the out-group). Furthermore, groupthink can produce
dehumanizing actions against the out-group.
Source: Boundless. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making.”
Boundless Management. Boundless, 14 Nov. 2014. Retrieved 19 Dec. 2014 from