Decision Making and problem solving
Assignment Instructions:
· Log in to Saudi Digital Library (SDL) via University’s website
· On first page of SDL, choose “English Databases”
· From the list find and click on EBSCO database.
· In the search bar of EBSCO find the following article:
Title: “7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making”
Author: Torben Emmerling and Duncan Rooders
Date of Publication: September 22, 2020
Published: Harvard Business Review
Assignment Questions: (Marks 05)
Read the attached article titled as “7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making” by Torben Emmerling and Duncan Rooders, published in Harvard Business Review, and answer the following Questions: [5 Marks]
- Summarize the article and explain the main issues discussed in the article. (In 600-700 words) (Marks 3)
- What do you think about the article in relations to what you have learnt in the course about improving decision-making and problem solving skills? Use additional reference to support you argument. (In 300-500 words) (Marks 2)
DECISION MAKING
7 Strategies for Better
Group Decision-Making
by Torben Emmerling and Duncan Rooders
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
HBR STAFF/CHARLES DELUVIO/UNSPLASH
When you have a tough business problem to solve, you likely bring it to a group. After all, more
minds are better than one, right? Not necessarily. Larger pools of knowledge are by no means a
guarantee of better outcomes. Because of an over-reliance on hierarchy, an instinct to prevent
dissent, and a desire to preserve harmony, many groups fall into groupthink.
Misconceived expert opinions can quickly distort a group decision. Individual biases can easily
spread across the group and lead to outcomes far outside individual preferences. And most of these
processes occur subconsciously.
2COPYRIGHT © 2020 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
http://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/griffin-groupthink-challenger
This doesn’t mean that groups shouldn’t make decisions together, but you do need to create the right
process for doing so. Based on behavioral and decision science research and years of application
experience, we have identified seven simple strategies for more effective group decision making:
Keep the group small when you need to make an important decision. Large groups are much more
likely to make biased decisions. For example, research shows that groups with seven or more
members are more susceptible to confirmation bias. The larger the group, the greater the tendency
for its members to research and evaluate information in a way that is consistent with pre-existing
information and beliefs. By keeping the group to between three and five people, a size that people
naturally gravitate toward when interacting, you can reduce these negative effects while still
benefitting from multiple perspectives.
Choose a heterogenous group over a homogenous one (most of the time). Various studies have
found that groups consisting of individuals with homogeneous opinions and beliefs have a greater
tendency toward biased decision making. Teams that have potentially opposing points of view can
more effectively counter biases. However, context matters. When trying to complete complex tasks
that require diverse skills and perspectives, such as conducting research and designing processes,
heterogeneous groups may substantially outperform homogeneous ones. But in repetitive tasks,
requiring convergent thinking in structured environments, such as adhering to safety procedures in
flying or healthcare, homogenous groups often do better. As a leader, you need first to understand
the nature of the decision you’re asking the group to make before you assemble a suitable team.
Appoint a strategic dissenter (or even two). One way to counter undesirable groupthink tendencies
in teams is to appoint a “devil’s advocate.” This person is tasked with acting as a counterforce to the
group’s consensus. Research shows that empowering at least one person with the right to challenge
the team’s decision making process can lead to significant improvements in decision quality and
outcomes. For larger groups with seven or more members, appoint at least two devil’s advocates to
be sure that a sole strategic dissenter isn’t isolated by the rest of the group as a disruptive
troublemaker.
Collect opinions independently. The collective knowledge of a group is only an advantage if it’s used
properly. To get the most out of your team’s diverse capabilities, we recommend gathering opinions
individually before people share their thoughts within the wider group. You can ask team members
to record their ideas independently and anonymously in a shared document, for example. Then ask
the group to assess the proposed ideas, again independently and anonymously, without assigning
any of the suggestions to particular team members. By following such an iterative process teams can
counter biases and resist groupthink. This process also makes sure that perceived seniority, alleged
expertise, or hidden agendas don’t play a role in what the group decides to do.
Provide a safe space to speak up. If you want people to share opinions and engage in constructive
dissent, they need to feel they can speak up without fear of retribution. Actively encourage reflection
on and discussion of divergent opinions, doubts, and experiences in a respectful manner. There are
3COPYRIGHT © 2020 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-98366-008
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-08135-004
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-98365-006
https://hbr.org/2008/11/when-teams-cant-decide
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/255859
https://store.hbr.org/product/wiser-getting-beyond-groupthink-to-make-groups-smarter/2299
https://store.hbr.org/product/wiser-getting-beyond-groupthink-to-make-groups-smarter/2299
https://store.hbr.org/product/the-fearless-organization/ROT389
three basic elements required to create a safe space and harness a group’s diversity most effectively.
First, focus feedback on the decision or discussed strategy, not on the individual. Second, express
comments as a suggestion, not as a mandate. Third, express feedback in a way that shows you
empathize with and appreciate the individuals working toward your joint goal.
Don’t over-rely on experts. Experts can help groups make more informed decisions. However, blind
trust in expert opinions can make a group susceptible to biases and distort the outcome. Research
demonstrates that making them part of the decision-making can sway the team to adapt their
opinions to those of the expert or make overconfident judgments. Therefore, invite experts to
provide their opinion on a clearly defined topic, and position them as informed outsiders in relation
to the group.
Share collective responsibility. Finally, the outcome of a decision may be influenced by elements as
simple as the choice of the group’s messenger. We often observe one single individual being
responsible for selecting suitable group members, organizing the agenda, and communicating the
results. When this is the case, individual biases can easily influence the decision of an entire team.
Research shows that such negative tendencies can be effectively counteracted if different roles are
assigned to different group members, based on their expertise. Moreover, all members should feel
accountable for the group’s decision making process and its final outcome. One way to do that is to
ask the team to sign a joint responsibility statement at the outset, leading to a more balanced
distribution of power and a more open exchange of ideas.
Of course, following these steps doesn’t guarantee a great decision. However, the better the quality
of the decision-making process and the interaction between the group members, the greater your
chances of reaching a successful outcome.
Torben Emmerling is the founder and managing partner of Affective Advisory. He is the author of the D.R.I.V.E.®
framework for behavioral insights in strategy, a seasoned lecturer in behavioral science and applied consumer
psychology and an accomplished trainer and keynote speaker.
Duncan Rooders is the CEO of a Single Family Office and a strategic advisor to Affective Advisory. He is a former B747
pilot, a graduate of Harvard Business School’s Owner/President Management program, and a consultant to several
international organizations in strategic and financial decision making.
4COPYRIGHT © 2020 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
https://hbr.org/2008/09/how-pixar-fosters-collective-creativity
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bdm.637
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bdm.637
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496408315983
https://hbr.org/2014/12/making-dumb-groups-smarter
https://hbr.org/1993/03/the-discipline-of-teams-2
https://hbr.org/1993/03/the-discipline-of-teams-2
https://affective-advisory.com/
https://affective-advisory.com/
Copyright 2020 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions
may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your
institution’s librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your
institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing
including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations
please visit hbsp.harvard.edu.