Introduction to Group Decision Making
.....
..

Make it second nature...	.	.		.
. The symptoms of Decision Paradox arise when members of decision-making groups are reluctant to be critical of, or challenge the ideas and opinions of their peers and leaders. They adopt a noncommittal stance that filters their own judgment. During meetings, the group members concur on ideas and avoid challenging one another for fear that conflict will disrupt the apparent harmony in the group. These powerful dynamics often lead a group to make decisions that, alone, the individual members would not support. Being able to recognize the phenomenon and counter it is critical to functioning effectively as a group.	.	.	.. CASE IN POINT... . .An example... Think back to when you were a teenager. If you were like most teenagers you and your friends probably did some things your parents would have objected to. Hopefully nothing too objectionable. Here's a story straight from the headlines of a teenage incident that went too far. Four teenage boys are wandering the neighborhood on a Saturday evening looking for something to do. Their neighborhood is still under construction so there are several houses under construction. One is about complete and in fact the new owners will be moving in in about two weeks. The boys are poking around the house when one gets the bright idea of breaking in. One agrees, another is silent and one objects to the idea. The one who objects is pressured into it with the brilliant logic of, "Don't be a sissy". The next thing, four teenagers have broken into a new home just to poke around. From there, things escalate. What fun is breaking into a home? Heck, if you go that far you might as well trash the place, right? (Remember, we're dealing with teenage mentality here.) Well, that's what happened. They broke mirrors, kicked holes in walls, tore up carpeting etc. Twenty minutes later the police arrive and four teenagers with no prior criminal history are taken to jail while their parents get a phone call they won't soon forget. Afterwards, the police asked them why they did it and all said they didn't know why. In fact, they all claimed they didn't want to do it. A bad idea was tossed out. There was some minor objection to it but that member was easily manipulated. And four boys, any one of whom would have made a different decision independently, made a bad choice as a group. Guess what? It happens all the time in business. The damage may not be as obvious as a hole in the wall or some broken glass but it probably costs even more! .	.

A skunk can't smell his own hole
Victims of Decision Paradox perceive a shared consensus. Many times members will remain silent so as not to disrupt that consensus and harmony. If criticisms are quickly swept under the carpet, a powerful message is sent: just agree to agree.

Whistling past the cemetery
Once a group has gone through the trouble of "consensus" and concocting a plan it is difficult to remain objective to negative feedback. Members are likely to dismiss later criticism of their idea as invalid.

Superman Syndrome
Members of a group may share an illusion of invulnerability that protects them from otherwise obvious concerns. They may become overly optimistic and take extraordinary risks. Since the responsibility for the decision is dispersed among members it's easier to disperse accountability. Alone, each individual would take a more cautious approach.

Shooting the messenger
Similar to a gatekeeper, individuals may appoint themselves as "mind-guards" to protect their leader or the group from adverse information. This is especially true if there is evidence that a group decision may have been the wrong one. Managers may find themselves sheltered from negative information that their employees struggle to deal with. That continues up the ladder until the CEO or President is told "everything's fine".

"Everybody's doing it"
At times, members within a group may apply subtle pressure on individuals to conform to the group's decision. This is most common when a majority supports the decision, or after there was a conflict that the group worked through. Once these dissenting members are persuaded the group becomes lulled into "false consensus".

"You get what you pay for..."
Did you ever notice the magnitude by which organizations commit themselves to a course of action often depends on how much money they've spent on that course of action? In a previous job, the company I worked for spent almost a million dollars on project management software because of the amount of time and money invested in researching and reviewing possible applications. Users despised the selection claiming it added no value to their job and actually created more work. As one manager put it, "That train is too far down the track. We have to buy it....".
..

 

.

. So how can you avoid this debilitating organizational plague? You're halfway there! Being aware of Decision Paradox will help you avoid it. The next section provides more specific steps to take when you want to test a group or decision for Decision Paradox. Click to learn more. .

.

. .....

.

Return to TTB Home Page