Group Decision Making within the Organization: Can Models Help?

Abstract

Group decision making is the process of arriving at a judgment based upon the feedback of multiple individuals. Such decision making is a key component to the functioning of an organization, because organizational performance involves more than just individual action. Due to the importance of the group decision making process, decision making models can be used to establish a systematic means of developing effective group decision making. In general, four group decision making models can be identified each possessing distinct advantages and disadvantages. These four models are the rational, political, process, and garbage can models.

Organizational performance is largely dependent upon the decision making processes that a particular organization uses. In every organization, decisions have to be made on a daily basis. These decisions range from small to large-scale in scope both in terms of the resources involved in making them and the impact that the decisions can have. For instance, a small-scale decision would be determining the type of copy machine to purchase for a company department. This decision involves resources (i.e., in the form of time and energy) of the users of this machine to clarify their needs as well as the purchasing representatives who research and acquire the copier. The ability of this copier to meet employees' needs decides the impact of this decision.

An example of a large-scale decision would be determining what product or service a company's customers need. This decision involves the time and energy of the individuals who research the consumer market, as well as the individuals who try to successfully develop and launch the product or service. This decision has the potential to make or break a company depending on the size of the organization.

As the preceding examples illustrate, the decisions and the processes involved in making them are not limited to the individual level. Moreover, the decision-making process is also performed at the group level, and it will be done so with increasing frequency given the need for high performance organizations in a competitive, global market. Group decision making is defined as the process of arriving at a judgment based upon the input of multiple individuals. This paper focuses on the group level of decision making.

Since the resources involved in the group decision-making process as well as the impact of these decisions affect organizational performance, it is crucial to make the group decision-making process as efficient and effective as possible. Utilizing a decision-making model is a systematic way of establishing group decision making proficiency. This statement is not intended to mean that the use of a group decision-making model is a panacea for group and organizational processes. This statement is merely intended to mean that a group decision-making model when used appropriately can aid in the functioning of the group and the organization.

In order to determine the appropriate use of a group decision-making model, the advantages and disadvantages of using a model should be discussed. The advantage of using a model is that it helps to enhance understanding (Burke, 1994; Winch, 1995). More specifically, a model assists in identifying the functioning of a group. It lends structure to a procedure that is dynamic and conceptual. By lending structure, it facilitates the identification and resolution of problems that can arise during the course and as a consequence of the decision-making process. This facilitation in turn can assist in improving the group decision-making process.

The potential disadvantage or pitfall to be aware of when using a model is that of being trapped by it (Burke, 1994). Using one particular model should not preclude the consideration of other models or other means of assessing group decision making. If a model is strictly adhered to without being open to other potential ideas, valuable information may be missed due to blatant disregard or misclassification of the information. Therefore, this limitation should be kept in mind in utilizing a group decision-making model.

A multiplicity of models exist regarding group decision making. So, it is not reasonably feasible to discuss every type. In general, there are four basic models of group decision making. Each one has its own assumptions and effectiveness criteria associated with it.

The Rational Model
The first model is the rational model. This model is based upon an economic view of decision making. It is grounded on goals/objectives, alternatives, consequences and optimality. The model assumes that complete information regarding the decision to be made is available and one correct conception of a problem, or decision to be made can be determined. The model further assumes that the decision-makers consistently assess the advantages and disadvantages of any alternatives with goals and objectives in mind. They then evaluate the consequences of selecting or not selecting each alternative. The alternative that provides the maximum utility (i.e., the optimal choice) will be selected. The rational model is the baseline against which other models are compared (Allison, 1971; Cheshire & Feroz, 1989; Lyles & Thomas, 1988).

An example of a scenario using a rational model is an executive group of a company trying to determine which consulting firm to hire in order to implement a business process reengineering (BPR) effort. The executive group's goal or objective is to become a leader in its industry, and it determines that the best way to accomplish this objective is through re-engineering. Numerous management consulting firms offer BPR services. Each firm's BPR approach has advantages and disadvantages. The executive group must evaluate each firm's approach by considering how the firm will enable the company to meet its objective. Based upon this evaluation, the group selects the consulting firm that provides the best means for the company to become a leader in its industry.

The most salient advantage of the rational model is that it utilizes a logical, sequential approach. Decisions are made deductively by determining the goals or objectives to be obtained, evaluating the potential alternatives based on the information at hand and choosing the optimal alternative. In other words, the model is simple and intuitive in nature.

The rational model does possess a salient disadvantage. The model assumes that there are no intrinsic biases to the decision-making process (Lyles & Thomas, 1988). This optimism may not be totally realistic, since individuals involved in the process bring their own perceptions and mental models into such a situation. Therefore, it seems that intrinsic biases are inevitable and something that should be addressed.

The Political Model
The second basic decision-making model considers the preconceived notions that decision-makers bring to the table in the decision process. This model is the political model. In contrast to the preceding model, the individuals involved do not accomplish the decision task through rational choice in regard to objectives. The decision makers are motivated by and act on their own needs and perceptions. This process involves a cycle of bargaining among the decision makers in order for each one to try to get his or her perspective to be the one of choice. More specifically, this process involves each decision-maker trying to sway powerful people within the situation to adopt his or her viewpoint and influence the remaining decision-makers (Allison, 1971; Cheshire & Feroz, 1989; Lyles & Thomas, 1988; Schneider, Shawver & Martin, 1993).

Furthermore, the political model does not involve making full information available or a focus on the optimal viewpoint like that of the rational model (Lyles & Thomas, 1988). Full information is highly unlikely, since the political model operates based upon negotiation that is often influenced by power and favors. In fact, information is often withheld in order to better maneuver a given perspective. Since information is often withheld and subsequently incomplete, the optimal viewpoint is not a key aspect of this model.

An illustration of the political model in action is a decision to hire a new manager for the Purchasing Department of a company. A group composed of the Human Resources (HR) Manager, staff members of the Purchasing Department, and the Director of Operations (i.e., whose division oversees the Purchasing Department) must make the decision among three candidates for the position. Each member has his or her own needs and reasons for endorsing certain job candidates.

The HR Manager is trying to fit the best person to the job, but would not mind if this individual has an innate liking for and understanding of human resources. This appreciation of HR would help decrease the cycle time of placing and receiving orders for necessities. The HR Manager would like to hire the first candidate. The Purchasing staff is also trying to find the best person for the position, but would prefer someone who does not micro-manage like their previous boss. The Purchasing staff would like to hire the second candidate. The Director of Operations also desires to find the best person for the job, but the Director would prefer an individual who unlike the previous Purchasing Manager is not overbearing and skeptical of the Director's decisions. The Director would like to hire the third candidate.

Since the group members have different agendas, they need to negotiate with each other and present their cases to the Director of Operations who has the final say in the decision. In the end, the Director understands the argument of the Purchasing staff and decides that the second candidate's hands-off approach would meet his needs as well. Therefore, the second candidate is hired.

The advantages of the political model remains that it provides a representation of the subjective manner in which the real world often operates, and it can minimize conflict. Individuals will always have their personal biases and agendas that influence their behavior. By identifying or acknowledging this fact in the decision-making process, potential problems and conflict can be foreseen and minimized. Conflict is also minimized by the swaying of powerful people to support a particular viewpoint. Once the powerful people support this perspective, other group members usually fall in line behind them.

While the political model has the advantage of emulating the way the real world operates (i.e., a cycle of bargaining related to personal agendas), this fact is also a disadvantage, because the best solution or decision may not be selected. Furthermore, the nature of bargaining and maneuvering (e.g., withholding information and social pressure) can produce effects that are long-lasting and detrimental. Once they discover it, the individuals involved in the decision may not appreciate the duplicity inherent in the process.

The Process Model
In contrast to the political model, the third basic model of decision making is more structured. This model is the process model. With the process model, decisions are made based upon standard operating procedures, or pre-established guidelines within the organization. Actions and behaviors occur in accordance with these procedures or guidelines (Cheshire & Feroz, 1989; Allison, 1971).

Additionally, the organization of past, present, and future events, as well as conformity, are integral parts to this model (Cheshire & Feroz, 1989; Allison, 1971). The organization of the past, present and future events are important, because they can be used as a consistent foundation for decision making. Considering these time events provides further refinement of the guidelines that help to determine outcomes.

Conformity is an integral part of the process model since it is the means by which doubt, or incertitude is dealt with during the decision task. If decision makers are uncertain as to the potential effectiveness or the results of a decision, they conform to the pre-established standard. This conformity should not be construed to mean that the decision will not have a solid foundation. In this case, conformity merely relates to the fact that the reasoning for the decision is based upon pre-determined guidelines (Cheshire & Feroz, 1989).

An example of a scenario involving the process model of decision making is promoting a Marketing Representative of a company to a higher level. A group comprised of the Marketing Manager, HR Manager, and Compensation and Benefits Manager meet to discuss the promotion. Since the Marketing Manager has seen exemplary work from the representative, the Marketing Manager adamantly wants to promote the individual from a Marketing Representative I to a Marketing Representative III. In their negotiation, the HR Manager and Compensation and Benefits Manager point out to the Marketing Manager that company policy mandates that an employee can only be promoted one level at a time. Additionally, no precedent has been set to justify deviation from this policy. Therefore, the Marketing Representative is promoted to Marketing Representative II.

The Garbage Can Model
The fourth model of decision making is the garbage can model. This model is most appropriate for judgment tasks in organizations where the technologies are not clear, the involvement of participants fluctuates in the amount of time and effort given, and choices are inconsistent and not well defined (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972; Lovata, 1987; Schmid, Dodd & Tropman, 1987).

In such an organization, an opportunity to make a decision is described as a garbage can into which many types of problems and solutions are dropped independently of each other by decision-makers as these problems and solutions are generated. The problems, solutions and decision makers are not necessarily related to each other. They move from one decision opportunity to another in such a manner that the solutions, the time needed and the problems seem to rely on a chance alignment of components to complete the decision. These components are the combination of options available at a given time, the combination of problems, the combination of solutions needing problems, and the external demands on the decision makers (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972; Lovata, 1987; Schmid, Dodd & Tropman, 1987).

An example of the garbage can model is a company department trying to deplete its budget before the end of the fiscal year. This department, consisting of five employees, has additional money in its budget to use up by the end of the fiscal year. The employees do not want to lose the money. So, they create a bogus allocation in order to protect it, but really have no use for it. Two weeks after the end of the fiscal year, the department's computer system goes down. Fortunately, the solution (the money from the budget to replace the computer system), the problem (inoperable computer system) and the individuals involved ( the employees) are in alignment. In other words, the timing is perfect for the combination of components to solve this problem: The employees protected budget money which could be used at a later time, the computer system went down, and the protected money could be used to buy a new computer system.

The notable advantage of the garbage can model is that it provides a real-world representation of the non-rational manner in which decisions are often made within an organization. Not all decisions are made in a logical, political, or even standard fashion. Occasionally, decisions are made on an ad hoc basis or by "flying by the seat of the pants" when the solutions, problems and individuals involved in the task happen to align.

Despite its representation of the non-rational, real-world manner in which decisions are often made, the garbage can model does have an important disadvantage. It is not the most efficient means of making a decision. Decision making is considered a procedure for finding solutions to problems. Unfortunately, this often does not happen if the garbage can model represents the manner in which decisions are made within an organization. Problems are worked on in given situations, but choices are made only when the combination of problems, solutions and individuals allow the decision to happen (i.e., are in alignment). Consequently, the alignment of the problems, solutions, and individuals often occurs after the opportunity to make a decision regarding a problem has passed or occurs even before the problem has been discovered (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972).

In discussing the four general models, the issue is not necessarily which model is the best one, because they all have advantages and disadvantages which may work or be appropriate for certain groups and situations. The purpose of using models to assess group decision making is to provide a base for comparison. A model is a starting point for evaluating a process, and group decision making is a process.

One way of evaluating this process is to determine which model, if any, a group is using to make decisions. Once the model is determined, the decision procedure can be analyzed in order to facilitate the improvement of the procedure. The procedure can be improved by anticipating potential problems and acting accordingly.

For instance, time wasted due to a lack of direction and organization can be eliminated. Knowing that a group makes decisions by following a rational model enables the decision makers to expedite the decision process. These individuals can expedite the process by preparing themselves for group meetings by becoming familiar with any goals or objectives, possible alternatives and consequences of these alternatives as well as potential optimal choices as they relate to a decision.

The knowledge that a group follows a political model in making decisions is also helpful. This knowledge can assist group members in preparing the supporting information for their perspective. This preparation can assist the individuals in presenting their viewpoint more persuasively. Consequently, their viewpoint has a better chance of being adopted as the one of choice.

Knowing that a group utilizes a process model for making decisions can also increase the effectiveness of the decision procedure. Being aware that judgments are made relative to standard operating procedures enables individuals to anticipate potential obstacles to a decision. Consequently, these individuals can research the pre-established guidelines that may pose these problems and adjust their argument or point of view accordingly.

If group members are aware that decisions are made by using a garbage can model, they at least have the comfort of knowing that these decisions follow some sort of method. Granted the method is somewhat random and chaotic, but it is a method nonetheless.

Moreover, identifying the model when the decision process does not function effectively is of value, because the decision makers then know the method to avoid. They should avoid the current model that produced the ineffective results. This avoidance can be accomplished by agreeing as a group to try to adopt a different approach (i.e., a new model).

It should be pointed out that even if the group decision-making procedure does not fit one of the aforementioned general models, the process of analyzing the decision task in and of itself in order to identify a model is beneficial. This analysis provides valuable insight into the dynamics of how decisions are made within the group whether or not one of the four models is actually discovered. The cognitive flow of the group is important to note, because it enables an understanding of the other group members' rationale for judgment. Furthermore, this cognitive flow may spawn the creation of a novel group decision-making model.

In conclusion, models of group decision making can be helpful. They are not cure-alls for faulty decision procedures. They are merely a starting point for potential improvement. Models aid in assessing the interaction of group members regarding a judgment procedure. Group decision making models provide form to an intangible and abstract concept. Models promote the discovery and resolution of problems that can occur during the decision-making process.

GROUP DECISION MAKING