{"id":375,"date":"2019-01-16T00:30:25","date_gmt":"2019-01-16T00:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-oneonta-communication\/chapter\/14-3-problem-solving-and-decision-making-in-groups\/"},"modified":"2020-06-26T16:03:37","modified_gmt":"2020-06-26T16:03:37","slug":"14-3-problem-solving-and-decision-making-in-groups","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-oneonta-communication\/chapter\/14-3-problem-solving-and-decision-making-in-groups\/","title":{"raw":"13.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups","rendered":"13.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Discuss the various influences on decision making.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don\u2019t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I\u2019m sure we\u2019ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the \u201cOK, now what?\u201d moment. I\u2019ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It\u2019s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn\u2019t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Group Problem Solving<\/h2>\r\n

    The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.<\/p>\r\n

    Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n

      \r\n \t
    1. An undesirable situation.<\/strong> When conditions are desirable, there isn\u2019t a problem.<\/li>\r\n \t
    2. A desired situation.<\/strong> Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.<\/li>\r\n \t
    3. Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation.<\/strong> These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group\u2019s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n

      Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

        \r\n \t
      1. Task difficulty.<\/strong> Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.<\/li>\r\n \t
      2. Number of possible solutions.<\/strong> There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do\u2014for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.<\/li>\r\n \t
      3. Group member interest in problem.<\/strong> When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.<\/li>\r\n \t
      4. Group familiarity with problem.<\/strong> Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren\u2019t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.<\/li>\r\n \t
      5. Need for solution acceptance.<\/strong> In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much \u201cbuy-in\u201d from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn\u2019t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
        \r\n
        \r\n
        \"14.3.0N\"<\/a>\r\n

        Group problem solving can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

        \r\n

        Muness Castle - Problem Solving<\/a> - CC BY-SA 2.0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

        \r\n

        Group Problem-Solving Process<\/h2>\r\n

        There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey\u2019s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group\u2019s cohesion and climate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

        \r\n

        Step 1: Define the Problem<\/h2>\r\n

        Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who\/what is involved? Why is it meaningful\/urgent\/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement<\/a><\/span>. Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: \u201cOur state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

        \r\n

        Step 2: Analyze the Problem<\/h2>\r\n

        During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group\u2019s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the \u201cwhat\u201d related to the problem, this step focuses on the \u201cwhy.\u201d At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group\u2019s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn\u2019t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question<\/a><\/span> that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. \u201cHow can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?\u201d As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

        \r\n

        Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions<\/h2>\r\n

        During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could<\/em> we do to address this problem, not what should<\/em> we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person\u2019s idea by asking something like \u201cWhat do you mean?\u201d or \u201cCould you explain your reasoning more?\u201d Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include \u201conline reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,\u201d and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include \u201cdaily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,\u201d and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include \u201cby a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused\u2019s supervisor, by the city manager,\u201d and so on.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

        \r\n

        Step 4: Evaluate Solutions<\/h2>\r\n

        During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and\/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects\u2014especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group\u2019s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, \u201cDoes this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?\u201d and \u201cCan the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?\u201d and \u201cHow will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?\u201d Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.<\/p>\r\n

        Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the \u201csix hats method,\u201d which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

        \r\n

        Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution<\/h2>\r\n

        Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, \u201cHow will we know if the solution is working or not?\u201d Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?<\/p>\r\n\r\n

        \r\n
        \r\n
        \"14.3.1N\" <\/a>\r\n

        Once a solution has been reached and the group has the \u201cgreen light\u201d to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making sure to consider possible consequences and address them as needed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

        \r\n

        Jocko Benoit - Prodigal Light<\/a> - CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

        Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or \u201cselling\u201d it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group\u2019s fate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

        \r\n

        \u201cGetting Competent\u201d<\/h4>\r\n

        Problem Solving and Group Presentations<\/p>\r\n

        Giving a group presentation requires that individual group members and the group as a whole solve many problems and make many decisions. Although having more people involved in a presentation increases logistical difficulties and has the potential to create more conflict, a well-prepared and well-delivered group presentation can be more engaging and effective than a typical presentation. The main problems facing a group giving a presentation are (1) dividing responsibilities, (2) coordinating schedules and time management, and (3) working out the logistics of the presentation delivery.<\/p>\r\n

        In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person \u201cstuck\u201d with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it\u2019s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn\u2019t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group\u2019s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn\u2019t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group\u2019s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings (Stanton, 2009).<\/p>\r\n

        Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people\u2019s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members\u2019 commitment.<\/p>\r\n

        Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn\u2019t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space (Stanton, 2012). In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his or her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they aren\u2019t fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you\u2019re going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don\u2019t want presenters huddled in a corner until it\u2019s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

          \r\n \t
        1. Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?<\/li>\r\n \t
        2. Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
          \r\n

          Decision Making in Groups<\/h2>\r\n

          We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they\u2019ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

          \r\n

          Brainstorming before Decision Making<\/h2>\r\n

          Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don\u2019t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you\u2019ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming<\/em> said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):<\/p>\r\n\r\n

            \r\n \t
          1. Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.<\/li>\r\n \t
          2. Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.<\/li>\r\n \t
          3. Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.<\/li>\r\n \t
          4. New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n

            To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

              \r\n \t
            1. Do a warm-up brainstorming session.<\/strong> Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should only go on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, \u201cIf our group formed a band, what would we be called?\u201d or \u201cWhat other purposes could a mailbox serve?\u201d In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group\u2019s more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.<\/li>\r\n \t
            2. Do the actual brainstorming session.<\/strong> This session shouldn\u2019t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other\u2019s ideas.<\/li>\r\n \t
            3. Eliminate duplicate ideas.<\/strong> After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.<\/li>\r\n \t
            4. Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas.<\/strong> Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since \u201cwild and crazy\u201d ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn\u2019t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract and can\u2019t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to not throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or \u201cwild and crazy\u201d category.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
              \r\n

              Discussion before Decision Making<\/h2>\r\n

              The nominal group technique<\/a><\/span> guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

                \r\n \t
              1. Silently and individually list ideas.<\/li>\r\n \t
              2. Create a master list of ideas.<\/li>\r\n \t
              3. Clarify ideas as needed.<\/li>\r\n \t
              4. Take a secret vote to rank group members\u2019 acceptance of ideas.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n

                During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn\u2019t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn\u2019t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they\u2019ve finished their list so they do not distract others.<\/p>\r\n

                During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person\u2019s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.<\/p>\r\n

                During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.<\/p>\r\n

                During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

                \r\n

                Specific Decision-Making Techniques<\/h2>\r\n

                Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 \"Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques\"<\/a> reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

                \r\n
                \r\n
                \"14.3.2N\" <\/a>\r\n

                Majority rule is a simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus one.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

                \r\n

                Becky McCray - Voting<\/a> - CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

                Majority rule<\/a><\/span> is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person\u2019s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases\u2014for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution\u2014a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.<\/p>\r\n

                Minority rule<\/a><\/span> is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn\u2019t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members\u2019 level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn\u2019t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.<\/p>\r\n

                Consensus rule<\/a><\/span> is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn\u2019t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that\u2019s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

                \r\n

                Table 14.1<\/span> Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
                Decision-Making Technique<\/th>\r\nPros<\/th>\r\nCons<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n
                Majority rule<\/td>\r\n\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                • Quick<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Efficient in large groups<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Each vote counts equally<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
                		\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                • Close decisions (5\u20134) may reduce internal and external \u201cbuy-in\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Doesn\u2019t take advantage of group synergy to develop alternatives that more members can support<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Minority may feel alienated<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
                Minority rule by expert<\/td>\r\n\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                • Quick<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Decision quality is better than what less knowledgeable people could produce<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Experts are typically objective and less easy to influence<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
                		\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                • Expertise must be verified<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Experts can be difficult to find \/ pay for<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Group members may feel useless<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
                Minority rule by authority<\/td>\r\n\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                • Quick<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Buy-in could be high if authority is respected<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
                		\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                • Authority may not be seen as legitimate, leading to less buy-in<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Group members may try to sway the authority or compete for his or her attention<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Unethical authorities could make decisions that benefit them and harm group members<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
                Consensus rule<\/td>\r\n\r\n
                  \r\n \t
                • High-quality decisions due to time invested<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Higher level of commitment because of participation in decision<\/li>\r\n \t
                • Satisfaction with decision because of shared agreement<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
                		\r\n