The Social Side of Decision Making Essay

Members fail to communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another, and, most importantly, sometimes even communicate the very opposite of their wishes based on what they assume are the desires and opinions of others. People make incorrect assumptions about consensus. Based on inaccurate perceptions and assumptions, members make a collective decision that leads to action. It is in the action that it becomes apparent that the decision is contrary to individual desires. Members experience frustration, anger, and dissatisfaction with the organization. Often this leads to the forming of sub-groups that take combative or blaming positions toward each other.

The decision-making process occurs at all levels of management. However, the top executive managers, middle level managers, and front line managers are responsible for guiding the decision making process within their healthcare organizations (Liebler & McConnell, 2008,p.148). CEO’s are responsible for guiding the actions and behaviors of their employees to collectively achieve the organization’s goals. The mission and vision statement are the foundation of what direction the healthcare agency is heading. The CEO and top level executives are responsible for developing code of ethics and code of conduct to align with accreditation, licensing, and federal and state laws.

Group communication follows slightly different ‘rules’ to communication in one-to-one situations. There is often more going on in a group, with a number of different people trying to speak, get their point across and their voice heard. Turn-taking can be more complicated; relationships and power issues between group members can also be more complex than in one-to-one contexts. As a communication context, groups can have a number of benefits for participants: • a group can be an effective way of sharing responsibilities • groups can improve decision-making and problem-solving because they draw on the knowledge and skills of a number of

This case, as well as the previous two, are prime examples of how detrimental groupthink can have on the effect of your career or the lives of several others. It may not always be easy to recognize the dangers or altercations groupthink may have, which is why you should always appoint ‘mind guards’ to contradict the decisions made within a group setting. It is always beneficial to seek an outside source for their opinion, as it may be just the idea that the group has

Team has to agree on the methods to which conflicts can be resolved within the group, this has to be addressed as soon as possible to enhance team cohesion and progress team effort towards achieving its goals.

In today’s economy, decision-making skills vary for each household; however, the bottom-line goal for every individual is to get the most for their money. In order to do this, there are 4 principles of individual decision-making: facing trade-offs, evaluating what one is giving up to obtain their goal, thinking at the margin, and responding to incentives.

The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack

Group member cohesiveness was absent from the group meeting for several reasons, but the primary reasons were due to the fact that the group members did not have a common description of value or structure to the discussion. Each member viewed their own area of involvement within the organization as being more valuable than any other area, and it was this exclusion of other valuable traits that lead the group to begin to clash in such a

With the potential of having many opinions within the group, it can be difficult and time costly to ultimately reach a consensus. As individuals, we are all rhetoricians and have different methods of communication. When it comes to discussing our opinions and persuading group members of our ideas, arguments are sometimes created because of the diversity within the group. What matters is whether the argument is productive or not. “While there are many unproductive arguments, others generate some of the most creative joint thinking we ever achieve together” (Mercer, 74). Unfortunately, in the case of groupthink, arguments tend to be avoided at all costs.

Furthermore, groupthink and group polarization also occurred in the movie. Groupthink is the tendency for members to reach solidarity, and the group often avoids questions that could lead to disputes (Iurchevici, 2016). In order for groupthink to occur, the group must be highly cohesive, in a group structure, and in a stressful situation (Kassin et al., 2013). All three of these were present in the movie, as the members of the group

When doing so the other group members were active listener, by using their whole body verbally and nonverbal. Like facing the speaker and giving eye contact and try to avoided interruption. The group also acknowledges the thoughts of the speaker by giving constructive feed back. Due to the effectiveness of the group communication, we were able to build trust, respect and understand the issues and make decision for effective change. We illustrate this by coming together as a group one again to accomplish the goal we initially wanted to accomplish. Since the first organization that we had chosen was incorrect, so we had to make the necessary changes to accomplish our goals. The other effective feature is the purpose of the group. Kozier et al (2010) stated that the effective group purpose is when “goal, task, and outcomes are clarified. Understanding and modified so that members of the group can commit themselves to purposes through cooperation” (p.401). For instance, each individual was assign a task and knew what was to be accomplished. As group we all decided to meet at suitable day and time which was beneficial to all team members, because we could commit to the group and focus on what needed to be achieved.

Organizational behavior helps managers to improve the organization in a good way. Decision making process is the one of the behavior in human organizational behavior. According to McShane and Von Glinow (2000), “decision making a conscious process of making choices among one or more alternatives with the intention of moving toward some desired state of affairs”. Decision making is a linear process and it includes six steps such as identifying the problems, gather and evaluate data, list and evaluate alternatives, select best action, implement the decision and getter feedback (refer to Figure 1 in Appendix 1).

Working in a group can be very difficult at times. Different people with different views may not always agree which one another. Throughout the various task I played the communicator. I made sure everyone was on track on what we wanted to do. I also made sure people was okay and happy in the role they was playing in the group. My group worked together in collecting ideas from one another and making it into one.

Decision making can be described as a process of making a decision or decisions, based on choices made amongst two or more competing course of actions. The ‘Decision making’ also requires making a define choice between two or more alternatives course of actions that are available.

We have to think about the qualitative factors that are involved in our decision making too. In the decision making process, as we saw in a case called The Nancy M. Hohman, we saw that many times the numbers will not speak louder than our personal preferences. The Nancy M. Hohman was a less than one year old ship, worthy US$ 40 million, carrying 200,000 tons of crude oil and 28 crew members and had an engine malfunction 9 miles way off the coast of South Africa. However, Port Elizabeth (the nearest one) was too small for the ship and the next close one was 380 miles away.