What Are The Pros And Cons Of Group Decision Making

Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran developed the Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making theory to “offer practical advice on how participants can act to ensure better group decisions” (Hirokawa, 1999, p. 170). They believe that as long as the members in a group care about the issue and are reasonably intelligent, the group interaction will have a positive effect on the final decision. In order for a group to reach a high-quality solution, Hirokawa and Gouran believe the group 's decision-making process needs to fulfill four task requirements they refer to as requisite functions of effective decision making. "Three core assumptions define the functional perspective: (1) groups are goal oriented; (2) group performance varies in quality and quantity, and can be evaluated; and (3) internal and external factors influence group performance via the interaction process.” (Wittenbaum, 2004 p. 19).

To add on to what Rachel said, groupthink can also occur if the leader is well respected or persuasive. It does have it pros and cons. If used properly the group can come to a solution with everyone contributing. It gives everyone of a sense if worth because they contributed. A con can be peer pressure as when everyone agrees on one solution. This leads mental inefficiency and decrease in moral judgement. As some patients may just go with everyone says in order to avoid conflict. If you want to avoid groupthink then you can have an outsider come in and question the views of the members or or assign the role of critical evaluator to each member of the group.

Groupthink: Groupthink is a way that groups may try to keep levels of conflict low. The problem is that all members pretend that they agree with a decision, which discourages creativity. Without counter arguments being presented, the group is susceptible to bad or even irrational decisions (Beebe p. 191).

In my work, we absolutely rely on a group of people from different departments in order to make proper informed decisions. Since I work in the healthcare field, all of our decisions are determined keeping the safety and care of our patients in mind first. I could not imagine making a decision that could negatively impact patient care without using all of the proper resources to gather all of the required information so that an informed decision could be made. It is important in any decision making to be as well informed as possible, be aware of any potential risks, and being prepared for contingencies if the result of the decision is not a favorable one. I have seen some not so extreme “groupthink” decisions made, and sometimes they work out and no harm is done. However, in many cases, I have seen negative results that have impacted patient care, caused a lot of unnecessary work for other people, and created safety and compliance issues. This is not to imply that bad decisions cannot be made even when not employing groupthink. The difference is the effort and the intent behind those decisions, and whether or not the consequences and risks were analyzed and acted upon in a moral and ethical

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

There are two threats to team effectiveness. First, the Asch effect, when an individual’s judgement is distorted by an incorrect but unanimous opposition, and second, group think, when a cohesive in-group members choose unanimity over appraisal of alternative courses of action (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, pp. 290, 292). Diversity is important to mitigate the risks of the Asch effect and group think.

Antecedent factors such asgroup cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process

The underlying causes of groupthink arise from the psychological need of group members to maintain “self-esteem and emotional equanimity” during times of stressful decision making (Janis, 2007, p. 166).

Groupthink is the process of a decision made by a group that pressures single individuals to not think for themselves and behave differently than if they were not in a group. For example, in a school project, the entire group but one person agrees on an idea. That one person stays quiet and does not speak up since everyone else

From this week’s readings, I appreciated how Schien (2006), demonstrated the importance of selecting a decision making method that appropriately fits “the time available, the past history of the group, the task being worked on, and climate” (p.297). Despite using purposeful selection, it is important to note that each method can prompt a unique set of challenges for group members. For instance, silence is often inappropriately interpreted as consent in “decision by lack of response” and “decision by self-authorization or minority” (Schien, 2006, p.299). Conversely, “decision by formal authority” can be ineffective if the leader/chair does not pursue decision that align with the perspectives of group members. Within the readings, I feel that

Groupthink is defined as a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-groups when members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013) Basically, it's when a group makes decisions that, more or less, discourages creativity or individual responsibility. I remember a time when I was in a business meeting, as an administrative assistant, taking notes, and at the time I didn’t know that what I was sitting in was a groupthink, but as I look back I can see the symptoms of one. There was a unanimous amount of peer-pressure to coax individuals into agreeing to a decision or idea that was presented. There was also the

Brainstorming in groups, if handled properly, can lead to the most advantageous solution to a problem. If mishandled, the group will return disastrous advice. One of the obstacles to effective brainstorming is groupthink; when the group follows along with the consensus to maintain harmony. This process is dangerous because the ideas presented are not critically evaluated, and without proper evaluation the wrong decision can be made.

Groupthink happens when crowds are highly tight and when they are under extensive weight to settle on a quality choice. At the point when weights

Groupthink is a phenomenon that happens in an organisation because often required to work in groups or teams. Almost all organisations work within groups on certain projects to reach a decision on ideas and plans. Groupthink requires the group to conform to the same beliefs and requires cohesiveness at all times. Groupthink occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressure lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement” (Irving Janis).

With multiple people working on a decision, the group has the potential to gather more valuable information required to make the decision at hand, which may take too much time for an individual (Individual Decision Making - Pros and Cons, n.d.). Moreover, an individual may be more likely to be biased by his own personal tendencies and his intuition – this risk is much smaller when multiple decision-makers are involved (Individual Decision Making - Pros and Cons,