4. Pros and cons of group decision making

In itself, the interaction of group members can be characterized, as noted by the American psychologist T. Mitchell (Mitchell, 1982), with the following manifestations:

1. some individuals tend to talk more than others;
2. individuals with a high status have a greater influence on a decision than individuals with a low status;
3. groups often spend a significant proportion of their time resolving interpersonal differences;
4. groups may lose sight of their purpose and get rid of inconsistent conclusions;
5. Team members often experience exceptionally strong pressure to encourage conformity.

Each of us who have presided over discussions knows that the main problems that we have to deal with here are following the agenda, the dominance of some people during the discussion, as well as many statements and actions caused only by friendly relations of participants or considerations of organizational policy. . Thus, certain practical steps are needed in order to minimize the negativity of these problems.

We now turn to the consideration of certain advantages and disadvantages of group decision making. E. Hall, D. Mouton and R. Blake found that group discussion generates twice as many ideas as compared to situations where the same people work alone (Hall, Mouton and Blake, 1963). At the same time, decisions made by the group are more accurate than individual decisions. Such data is explained by the fact that the group as a whole has more knowledge than one individual. Moreover, this information is more versatile, which provides a greater variety of approaches to solving the problem.

However, groups usually do not contribute to the manifestation of creative power when making decisions. Most often, the group suppresses the creative impulses of its individual members. When making decisions, groups can follow familiar patterns over a long period.

On the other hand, groups better than individuals can appreciate the innovative idea. Thus, the group is sometimes used to make a judgment about the novelty and originality of an idea.

With group decision making, the acceptability of decisions made by all members of the group increases. It is known that many decisions cannot be realized because people do not agree with them. However, if people themselves are involved in decision making, they are more willing to support them and encourage others to agree with them. Participation in the decision-making process imposes on the individual the corresponding moral obligations and increases the level of his motivation, if he is to fulfill these decisions. An important advantage of group decisions made in any real organization is that such decisions can be made more legitimate compared to decisions taken alone.

Of interest are the experiments of L. Hoffman, who clarified the role of such characteristics as the composition of the group. The data obtained showed that heterogeneous (heterogeneous) groups, whose members differed in qualifications and experience, usually made decisions of a higher quality than homogeneous (homogeneous) groups. However, homogeneous groups whose members had similar qualifications and experience had other advantages. Such groups contributed to the satisfaction of their members and reduce conflict. Here was a big guarantee that in the process of this group’s activity none of its members would dominate (Hoffman, 1959).

The main task of a number of studies is to study the role of group interaction features when making decisions. On this basis, interactive and nominal (non-interactive) groups are distinguished. An ordinary discussion group, for example, one or another commission, whose members directly interact with each other in order to make a decision, is called interactive. In the nominal group, on the contrary, each member acts relatively isolated from the rest, although sometimes they are all in the same room (but they are also spatially separated). At the intermediate stages of work, these persons are provided with information about each other’s activities and have the opportunity to change their opinions. Thus, here we can talk about indirect interaction. As U. Duncan notes, nominal groups are superior to interactive solutions at all stages, except for the synthesis stage, when ideas expressed by group members are compared, discussed and combined. As a result, it is concluded that it is necessary to combine nominal and interactive forms, since this leads to the development of group solutions of higher quality (Duncan, 1981).

When considering the problems of group decision-making, one should pay attention to the phenomenon of personality de-individualization. As already noted, this is the loss by the individual of the sense of identity in a group, which often leads to the disinhibition of moral principles that restrain the individual within certain moral limits. Due to this deindividuation, individuals in a group can sometimes make decisions that are very conservative or, conversely, too risky. And sometimes group decisions are even immoral to such an extent that this is not characteristic of the majority of group members, considered separately.

Western psychologists pay considerable attention to the problem of the level of risk in group decisions. The data obtained are contradictory. So, there is experimental evidence that suggests averaging of extreme positions in the process of making a group decision. As a result, the decision turns out to be less risky than the possible individual (Fraser et al., 1971).

In accordance with other data, group solutions are more at risk than solutions preferred by the “average” member of this group (Wallach, Kogan and Bem, 1962). When making decisions, the group seeks alternatives that provide a higher end result, but less likelihood of achieving it. Along with this, significant coincidences were found between the distribution of group and individual decisions: although the group decision carries a greater degree of risk than the decision of the “average” member of the group, however, any group decision is not riskier than the individual decisions of individual members of this group.

Risk Shift and Group Polarization. The phenomenon of increasing the level of risk observed by a number of researchers in decisions made by the group has been called the “risk shift”. This phenomenon is a consequence of the deindividuation of the individual in the group and is called “diffusion” of responsibility, since no member of the group is fully accountable for the final decision. The individual knows that responsibility lies with all members of the group.

So, in some cases, groups demonstrate a desire for greater risk, in others - they are conservative in their decisions. To date, research shows that when the initial views of group members are conservative, group discussion leads to a shift towards even greater conservatism. Conversely, when individual opinions lean toward risk, the result of group discussion is a shift towards even greater risk. The main conclusion from the data obtained is that a group discussion leads to more extreme solutions - a phenomenon called group polarization. The following explanations are proposed for this phenomenon (Taylor et al., 1994).

First of all, we note that people receive new information as a result of listening to the pros and cons of the arguments during the group discussion. The more numerous and convincing are the arguments in favor of a position, the more likely it is that members of the group will accept this position. However, during a group discussion, all possible pros and cons are not usually considered and all points of view are not presented with an equal degree of conviction. Often, the majority of the arguments expressed express the initial position of each group member, so people usually hear more arguments for their own point of view than against it. A group discussion can also encourage group members to weigh different arguments and more actively defend their position. Based on the information provided during the discussion, people can thus be convinced of the correctness of their initial views and therefore come to more extreme opinions.

The second explanation of group polarization emphasizes the role of social comparison and self-presentation processes. The basic idea here is that group members are interested in how their personal opinions relate to the opinions of other people in the same group. During the discussion, an individual can learn that others have similar attitudes and that, in fact, some of these people have even more extreme views than he does. The desire to look positive, for example, confident or brave, can lead individuals to shift towards even more extreme positions than those expressed by other members of the group. This is essentially an attempt to achieve a certain superiority, when individuals try to be "better" than the average member of the group. According to American studies, both the action of persuasive arguments and the processes of social comparison occur simultaneously.

Finally, another explanation of group polarization is the process of social identity. The basic idea here is that the discussion encourages individuals to focus on their group membership and identify with this group. This, in turn, leads individuals to feel the need to align their own views with the norms of the group. However, instead of revealing the “correct” typical opinion of the group, its members perceive the group norm as more stereotypical or as expressing a certain extreme. Consequently, they strive to conform to what they consider to be a group position, thus displacing their own attitudes towards the greater extreme. In general, whatever the possible causes of group polarization, this phenomenon represents an important facet of group decision making.

"Group thinking". Sometimes groups that cannot be denied neither in competence nor in intellect make decisions that subsequently turn out to be catastrophic. American psychologist I. Janis (Janis, 1982), who paid attention to this circumstance, argues that such effects can be caused by extreme forms of group polarization. The conditions contributing to this, Janis called "group thinking", noting as his symptoms, a decrease in mental productivity, an insufficient consideration of reality and an increase in the level of permissibility in the moral assessment of decisions made. All this, taken together, causes the group to have an excessive desire to reach consensus. This desire prevents the critical assessment of possible solutions. According to Janice, one can define “group thinking” as a way of thinking in which the preservation of the unity and solidarity of one’s group is considered more important than a realistic assessment of an alternative course of action.

Janis suggested that there are three main factors contributing to the formation of "group thinking". First of all, this is a high level of group cohesion. Although such cohesion among members of a group seems at first glance to be a very positive group characteristic, it is also associated with considerable conformity. This means that when people are extremely attached to a particular group and really want to be recognized in it, they will most likely agree with the influence that members of this group have on their thoughts and actions. Janice believed that when a high level of cohesion is combined with two other factors, namely, the “threatening situational context” and “structural and procedural errors”, then the groups become more susceptible to “group thinking”. Speaking of “situational context,” Janice argues that groups facing a threatening stressful situation may overestimate the importance of the speed of decision making compared to its accuracy. In addition to this, stressful people become more dependent on the support of others (remember the experiment of S. Miner, described in Chapter 7). This circumstance increases the influence of the group on its individual members. In accordance with the provisions of Janice, the “structural and procedural errors” that cause “group thinking” are a lack of systematic procedures for analyzing and making decisions, isolation of this group from others and the presence of a decision-maker who knows that his preferences will be taken into account in the final group decision.

Janice calls three main symptoms that suggest that any group is subject to "group thinking". We give them below.

1. Revaluation of own group. The group members develop an illusion of invulnerability and an undeniable faith in the high moral qualities of their own group.
2. Limitations. Members of the group believe that their decisions were the only correct ones, and perceive their opponents through the prism of stereotypes.
3. Increasing pressure towards uniformity. Group members do not recognize those who express doubts about group judgments and decisions. They censor their own fears and behave like "guards of reason" to protect the group from information that would cast doubt on their course of action. In connection with the effect of conformity, the group members form an illusion that there is no one who doubts their decisions. This illusion of unanimity is directed to confirm the unsuccessful decision taken by the group.

Janis made a number of proposals aimed at overcoming the “group thinking” and increasing the effectiveness of the group decision making process. These suggestions include the following:

1. The leader should encourage group members to publicly announce all obstacles and doubts about the proposed solution. Therefore, in order to be effective, a leader must have the desire to allow criticism of his ideas.
2. The leader should initially remain impartial in the course of discussions, declaring his preferences and expectations only after the members of the group express their own opinions.
3. The group should be divided into subcommissions in order to discuss the issues relatively independently and then overcome the differences together.
4. To participate in group discussions, outside experts should be invited, who must be asked to criticize the views of the group members.
5. With each group discussion of the problem, at least one person must act as a stern critic, questioning group ideas.

The purpose of these proposals is to encourage the group to consider a number of alternatives, avoid the illusion of consensus, and take into account all relevant information.

The most thorough test of the model Janice can be considered the study of F. Tetlock together with colleagues (Tetlock et al., 1992). They analyzed the minutes of meetings at which 12 different political decisions were made. It was assumed that these decisions could potentially be associated with "group thinking".

The researchers concluded that with a sufficient degree of reliability it is possible to detect the difference between those groups whose decisions reflected "group thinking", and others whose solutions demonstrated a valid conclusion and a kind of "vigilance." The obtained data also confirmed the existence of the group-thinking process. Such, for example, characteristics were suspicion towards others, restriction of information exchange, condemnation of the opposition. In accordance with the Janice model, as more and more concern for group consensus appeared in groups, they began to show more and more symptoms of “group thought”, with the result that the decision-making process turned out to be imperfect. However, the data obtained did not support the position of Janis that “group thinking” is caused by a high level of cohesion or situational threat. In other words, the likelihood that groups are very cohesive and in high tension will become victims of “group thinking” is no greater than for groups of less cohesive or caught in less stressful conditions.

In general, we can conclude that the phenomenon of “group-thinking” does exist, although not in full accordance with the model of Janice. Group thinking, obviously, can seriously undermine the ability of groups to effectively make important decisions.