What Is Coming To Consensus

Group members can achieve consensus in their decision making when they follow all of these steps except

A consultative style encourages discussion with the team; the leader presents the situation or problem and may possibly suggest a provisional decision. They then invite discussion about it and get suggestions and ideas, the leader then decides. Positives of this style include group synergy ‘none of use is as clever as all of us’, and acknowledgment that the team has something to contribute to the decision-making process. Disadvantages of this style could include slower decision making due to consultation, and the expectation of the team or individuals that they will always be consulted.

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 selecting a new electronic health record (EHR) system for the clinic, we need identify all the professional roles that should be represented on the two teams. The two teams will collaborate on how to effectively choose an EHR that is just right for the clinic and its fifty (50) employees. For these two teams to be effective we need to make every effort form a consensus among the two teams as this will make it easier when narrowing down the list of systems. Creating successful teams is a necessary requirement as it allows the team members an ability to make uniform decisions and solve problems as a group. To form a team consensus we need to examine each team member to make sure that they will support each other with no member opposing

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.

Decision making is affected by the Group Think because of the lack of openness that should be displayed and offered by everyone involved. The development of the organization is dependent on the ability of the group to make decisions that are thought through and not made solely on pressures and accepted or narrow minded ways that are not thought out.

When individual group members get stuck with an idea, another member's creativity and experience can take the idea to the next stage. Group brainstorming can therefore develop ideas in more depth than individual brainstorming.

Also, we would have made all decisions by consensus in order to diminish dissent amongst the group. Although debate was encouraged among team members, some decisions were inputted by a majority rule due to time

Throughout this project, I found that working through the Standard Agenda to solve a problem was an effective way for a group to decide upon a solution. Even though our group was unexperienced using the Standard Agenda, we were able to use each other’s strengths to improve the quality of our discussion about the issue of rising college tuition. Looking back to previous projects, I can see how our group has grown to better understand the methods of effective group work. While there were both beneficial and impeding forces at work in the task and social processes, I feel that overall our group had a successful problem solving discussion.

Steg, L., Van Den Berg, A., & DeGroot, J. I.M. (2013). Environmental Psychology: In Introduction [University of Phoenix Custom Edition eBook]. West Sussex, UK: British Psychological Society and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, PSY460 website.

The discussion is an open-process, meaning that the decision making is done amongst the group members, not just the leader. Unlike an authoritative leader, the leader of this group allows the members to be a part of his or her final say. By doing this, it helps to keep everyone on the same page and moving forward in the same direction.

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).

My group was somewhat unresponsive when it came to making decisions and I found that whenever people made suggestions they were usually met with silence or responses that consisted of “no”. It made things very exhausting and slightly more complicated when we needed to move forward. I wish people had been more outspoken and a bit more supportive during this time. I think this situation was mostly solved once we stopped talking about ideas and just started putting things into action.

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.

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.