3. Making decisions in groups

In practice, there are often situations where all members of a group in one way or another participate in the formulation and adoption of any decisions. From the point of view of common sense, a joint approach to decision-making may seem more effective than a one-man decision. Immediately, a saying comes to mind: "The mind is good, but two is better." Indeed, what one member of the group does not know may know another. In cases where a solution involves a single, definite answer, it is reasonable to assume that the more people in a group, the more likely it is to get the right solution, to find the right answer. However, experts in various fields often express skepticism about group decisions, citing a different, more modern saying: "A camel is a horse designed by a commission." So, if you turn to practice, then you should ask yourself this question: is the group solution always better than the sole?

Over the past few decades, many psychologists have been busy comparing the effectiveness of individual and group decisions. First of all, it should be noted that the process of group decision making is, in fact, similar to the process of individual decision making. In either case, the same stages are present - understanding the problem, gathering information, proposing and evaluating alternatives, and finally choosing one of them. However, the process of group decision-making is more difficult in a socio-psychological sense, since each of these stages is accompanied by interaction between the members of the group and, accordingly, a collision of different views.

Types of group tasks. To answer the question about the comparative effectiveness of individual and group solutions, it is necessary to first consider the various types of tasks that a group can perform (Steiner, 1972).

An additive problem is one in which group productivity is the sum of the efforts of each member. For example, when several people push a car together to take it out of a groove on the road, this group effort is the sum of the efforts made by each individual. The success of solving additive problems depends on whether the members of the group can effectively coordinate their efforts. In the example with the car, it is important that everyone pushes him at the same time and in the same direction. So, with additive tasks, group productivity surpasses the total of the efforts of any one person, and larger groups are more productive than those that are smaller in size.

A conjunctive task is one in which all members of a group must follow each other in order to achieve a goal. Take, for example, the relay race. To win a team, it is necessary that each of its members run as quickly as possible and, at the end of their stage, correctly pass on the next baton. Inaccurate actions of one of the participants in its transfer can negate the efforts of the whole team. In conjunctive tasks, group productivity is entirely dependent on the least prepared member of the group, as they say, the “weak link”.

With a disjunctive task, it is enough for only one person to solve the problem in order for the whole group to succeed. If, for example, a research group tries to solve a complex mathematical equation, then any member of it, by giving the correct answer, can provide group efficiency. The success of group activities in a disjunctive task depends on the skills of the most competent member.

The requirements of different tasks often vary greatly. Some of them are easily divided into specialized subtasks, each of which can be performed by one person. Other tasks can not be divided into subtasks. Even when subtasks can be defined, they can be understood to varying degrees by group members. If these subtasks are not obvious, then sometimes considerable reflections and negotiations may precede attempts to solve the problem.

If the task of the group can be subdivided in any way among its members, this does not always provide the key to its solution. For example, when playing football, each member of the team must perform certain functions in accordance with the intention of the coach.

At the same time, team productivity depends not only on the efforts and skills of the best or worst player, but also on the team’s ability to coordinate the individual actions of the players, maintaining links between the attackers, midfielders and the line of defense.

Brainstorm. Based on the assumptions about the benefits of a group approach to decision-making over an individual, the head of one of the American advertising agencies A. Osbourne (Osborn, 1957) came up with a justification of the method, which he called "brainstorming". In the center of his attention was the promotion of new ideas and solutions in advertising.

The practice of brainstorming is as follows. A group of relevant experts is offered to discuss a specific problem, for example, to come up with an advertising slogan for a new brand of toothpaste. Team members are instructed to make as many different proposals as possible within a relatively short period of time. Osbourne formulated the following basic rules of brainstorming, which, according to many psychologists, may be applicable when developing a wide range of problems:

1. Any criticism of the ideas put forward is excluded. Negative evaluations of ideas are postponed until the very end.
2. Free, unrestricted offers are welcome. The crazier the idea, the better, because it’s easier to suggest a gray idea than an outstanding one.
3. Number of ideas required. The greater the number of ideas put forward, the greater the likelihood of success.
4. The combination of various ideas and their processing is encouraged. In addition to putting forward your own ideas, you should make suggestions on how to improve the ideas of others or how to combine several ideas in such a way as to create another one.

"Brainstorming" is conducted in the form of sessions lasting from 40 to 60 minutes. Each group consists of six to nine participants, who sit around the table so that they can easily and quickly communicate with each other. The session begins with the fact that the group leader (a specially prepared person) puts forward a problem for the members of the group for analysis, urging them to maximally free their imagination. The ideas expressed are recorded by the secretary or by mechanical means.

The brainstorming method has both supporters and opponents who are skeptical about its capabilities. Thus, in one of the modern American textbooks on social psychology, on the basis of several experiments, it is concluded that “brainstorming” is not a more effective method than the work performed by individuals alone. "Why then do people continue to use such groups to solve problems?" - the authors of this textbook S. Taylor, L. Peplow and D. Sears ask this question (Taylor et al., 1994. P. 353). They answer their question as follows. First, people may mistakenly believe that groups are indeed more productive than individuals. After a brainstorming session, group members may be amazed by the many ideas that were born out of the discussion. Individuals can see that the group has produced more decisions than one person could have done, but they forget about the right comparison (that is, comparison with the productivity of several individuals working simultaneously on one). In other words, people who really agree that “the mind is good and two are better” do not ask themselves such a question: is it better to have two heads together or two heads one by one? The second reason for the popularity of such group discussions is that people usually enjoy their stay in a group and prefer such discussions to work alone. It is known that group discussions contribute to increasing employee satisfaction and work motivation, although they take longer.

In conclusion, we note that along with a critical assessment of the brainstorming method in the American management literature, evidence is presented that speak in his favor. So, according to T. Mitchell (Mitchell, l982), the use of this method in the "quality circles" has allowed one of the major American companies to achieve significant savings in money. Brainstorming is widely used in advertising and some other areas where it appears to be effective (Gibson et al., 1994). It is also suggested that the factor of controlled time in past experiments could affect the productivity of groups that used "brainstorming". So, one of M. Rosenbaum's research found that when the time of activity is not limited, groups will continue to generate ideas, while individuals run out (Lau and Jelinek, 1984). Based on this, it is recommended to refer to the following problem-solving procedure: first, people work one by one, and then in a group using brainstorming.