Group Decision Making in Browns Insurance Services - Case Study Example

Title: Group Decision Making Student’s Name: Instructor: Institution: Coarse code: Date Submitted:  Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 3 Literature Review on Group Decision-Making…………………………………….. 4 Challenges facing Group Decision-Making………………………………………… 8 Ways of improving group decision-making……………………………………….. 11 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 12 Group Decision Making Introduction Browns Insurance Services made investments two years ago on technological advances. It also intended in supporting the company’s call center make its services better. The company budgeted heavily on the decision made for technological advances. The new technology at Browns call centre in North East England cost the company a lot, yet it was never fruitful. This is because the technology failed in its set goal of supporting the activities within the call centre. The Company later ended up spending more in rectifying the problem they initiated themselves. The CEO, Mr. Sebastian Green, explained the state as a shock to the company. This paper details the report requested by the CEO of the company in rectifying the mistakes done and planning for a greater future and better organization planning. The report entails the strategies of proper learning of the organization on decision-making. It also looks into how it can be implemented to make principled decisions as well as some of the limitations that can bring down a group decision-making process. It aims at improving the decision-making within the members of the board in the organization for the benefit of the company operations. It is relevant to the company and of use in the next board meeting that, the board will serve another mandate of delivering another decision-making process and come up with conclusions in issues affecting the company. The paper will cover a review of literature detailing the topic of decision-making, indicating some of the benefits involved in making decisions through groups and the reasons for failure in using the approach. It also covers how Brown’s company can improve its approaches in group-decision making to attain the required results and enhance the achievement of its goals and objectives. In conclusion, it handles some of the recommendations applicable in the case of Brown’s company regarding decision-making processes. Literature Review on Group Decision-Making Decision-making is an outcome of human mental processes otherwise known as a cognitive process. The event leads to the selection of a specific course of action among many available alternatives. Every decision-making process involves coming up with a final choice (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). The output of a decision-making process can be an opinion or an action of choice. Human performance in the process of decision-making has been researched actively from many perspectives. The psychological perspective argues that there is a necessity of examining individual decisions within a set of needs and preferences that an individual holds and the actual values he seeks (Moreland 1992, 124-155). The cognitive perspective argues that the process in decision-making must be regard continuity and involve integration in the human interaction with the surrounding environment. The normative perspective describes the process as an analysis of individual decision making literally concerned with the reality of rationality and choice that it leads to, finally (Hackman 2002, 68-87). It is only through groups that conclusive decisions can be a result and a proper and smooth running in an organization. There are many decision-making processes involving groups that could be vital to any organization. They include brainstorming, quality circles, brain writing, buzz sessions, and nominal group technique. Out of these techniques, rarely can an individual fail in making sensible decisions for the common good of an organization (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). West (1996, 555-579) described group decision making as an overall strategy involving participative leadership where the authoritarian mode of decision-making ceases. In this case, the authoritarian strategy is replaced by egalitarian set of strategies in an attempt to achieve a favorable consensus. He further said that through group decision-making, it is possible to examine traits associated with respective decision makers as well as teams involved in decision-making leading to a conclusive consensus (Guzzo 1986, 270-295). Some of the vital components he identifies as relevant in any group decision making process include high ambiguity tolerance, well-ordered priorities, listening capacity, avoid stereotypes ability and remaining resilient (Gladstein 1984, 499-517). Hackman (2002, 68-87) argued in his contemporary theory that group decision making involves use of logic. It is by far advantageous because it does not involve individual emotions. Logical decision-making is essential and necessary for all science-based professions. In this case, they apply specialist knowledge in a given area to come up with conclusive ideas and decisions about a particular scenario and result in informed decision-making (West 1996, 555-579). This would be the ideal approach in any controversial situation or times of crises with the organization. For example, Browns Insurance Services decision to invest would be rather a set of meetings involving all stakeholders to incorporate ideas that lead to better understanding and decision-making (Moreland 1992, 124-155). Some naturalistic methods used in researches on decision-making shows, however, that there are situations that engage higher pressure, increased ambiguities or higher stakes (West 1996, 555-579). In such cases, experts may use intuitive decision-making that is favorable to come up with a solution rather than using structured approaches. The approach is favorable and advantageous because it delivers conclusive points and concepts used mostly to derive solutions in a decision-making session (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). The functional perspective has origins traced from the works of Davis (1973, 97-125). The focus of the perspective in on consequences emanating from participants’ behavior in a decision making process. The behaviors influence the decision-making process a fantastic deal and affect future elements of the organization according to the decision arrived at by the board. Functional theory defines group decision making as the prospective approach and one with many advantages in decision-making (Gladstein 1984, 499-517). This perspective is generally applicable in every organization without a bias to any process regarding decision-making. Groups always develop high-quality decisions when mandated to facilitate the process. However, it is only possible when members of the group fulfill at least four requisite functions including goal setting, problem analysis, identification of alternatives, as well as evaluation of negative and positive consequences. Mostly, the main failure of a group decision making is communication (Guzzo 1986, 270-295). When there is poor communication the group ends up in making poor decision that do not benefit an organization. Poor communication according to functional theorists is the main disruption to a considerable progress and plays down any accomplishment of functional tasks (Davis 1973, 97-125). The perspective is a clear application in the case of Browns Insurance Services. This argument explains decision-making success as only a result of motivations and capabilities of the members of the group responsible for making the decisions. The perspective also stresses on the principal of resource availability in decision making where the parties have convenient access to help them make a fine decision (Moreland 1992, 124-155). The theory contemplates a likelihood of a decision-making success or facilitating a problem solving appropriately, if only communication functions during the process assure five critical requirements. The requirements include showing a proper understanding of the matter at hand requiring a solution, determining the main characteristics an alternative must exhibit, identification of relevant alternatives, assessment of alternatives relating them to the criteria used and a selection of the best alternative satisfying the criteria. These represent the activities and the best process that enhances the effective of any decision made from the group (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). The relevance of the perspective to Browns Insurance Services shows in the way the company used most of its resources to host the board in a conference so that it would make appropriate decisions. However, the board failed to deliver and made wrong decisions of which a better approach in this case must be instituted. The company did not adhere to the five elements needed for the success of decision-making. The members of the board rushed to make a very critical decision that cost the company (Guzzo 1986, 270-295). It would have been better to engage first the members in a better understanding of the situation. It is assumable that the board members mainly the majority did not conceptualize the situation and were involved blindly without adequate information of what the company needed. One week was also limited for the board to make decisions. In assumption, the board did not have enough time to look into possible alternatives that could indeed help the company plan and act to its advantage (Moreland 1992, 124-155). The main challenge of group decision is coming up with a conclusion on what action is necessary for a group to take. There are systems perfectly designed to provide a solution to the problem. However, these systems encounter problems and hardships therefore, denying the organization the benefits derived from a logical decision from the group (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Challenges facing Group Decision-Making Biases at times creep into an individual’s decision-making, and they overlap in smooth process in decision-making. They prevent a better process and therefore, the advantages of decision-making cannot be realized in an organization. Potential cognitive interventions are the major cause of poor decision-making and uninformed choice when making crucial decisions. They lead to inappropriate decisions that are never fruitful to the organization. Some of the challenges that bring down a group decision-making process include selective search for evidence. This is also known as confirmation bias in psychology (Gladstein 1984, 499-517). In this case, individuals tend to develop a will to gather information and facts supporting certain conclusions but them generally disregard other facts that are the main support of better conclusions. This is mostly common with highly defensive individuals in an organization who tend to defend their own ambitions other than the common good of the organization. From this perspective, unless individuals come up together and cover their differences and references of bias, there is no way a decision can be valid and advantageous to the organization (West 1996, 555-579). It is apparent that every member in a group responsible for decision-making should do away with individual ambitions and make a better understanding on the reality in deriving conclusions for the organization’s operations (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). Premature and eventual termination of evidence search is also another key block to determining the reality of a consensus. There is a tendency of individuals to accept first alternatives rather than get into details and search for evidence before arriving at a decision (West 1996, 555-579). This affects the organization and individuals fail to come to a consensus. Most of these sessions involve adopting an alternative that seem right. In addition, one that seems like it can work yet it is bogus and cannot lead to conclusive decision-making. In reality, the organizations never enjoy the benefits of decision making because there is an element of compromise to what could have been a better review and a conclusive deliberation (Davis 1973, 97-125). Therefore, to make the dream of an organization enjoying advantages of group decision making, rushed decisions have to be avoided. The concept of making decisions in any organization should focus on more research, and this will be advantageous in deriving better and wiser decisions that facilitate a better organization’s status (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Inertia also demeans the advantages of a group decision making. The group at times composes of individuals who are unwilling to accept change patterns that used in the past to perform in the organization (Sniezek 1992, 124-155). In this setting, the organization fails altogether to come up with a concrete decision that will bring advantages because of the introvert’s perception and conservative thinking. Mainly, unfavorable decisions come from the group resulting from inertia. This is because a part of the individuals is enticed by new circumstances upcoming and not realizing the harm that the organization could experience in such circumstances. This mostly should be alienated through a reshuffle of the board responsible for decision-making. Such individuals who compromise decision-making should be alienated from the group (West 1996, 555-579). Their stand creates controversy in decision-making; therefore, they are as an enemy of the organization. Togetherness is the only sound approach of making smart decisions and driving the organization to enjoy the fruits of the decision made it is the only perspective to making informed decisions derived from contributions of individuals (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Selective perceptions have always let down a group decision process. This denies the organization to make upright decisions and benefit from them through the advantages in such decision-making processes. In this case, the individuals actively screen-out information during the process and regard it as less important. In this case, such screened out information might be relevant without the knowledge of the group making the decision. Therefore, the result in the discussion to make decisions comes out not apparent as it would be in a formal decision making process. The selective perceptions brings in controversy in decision making, and therefore, locks the ideas that could be of value and the result is poor decisions. Every part of the decision making process must be adhered to and considered if there are any sound decisions to come from the group involved. Screening out parts of the policies, issues and other elements responsible for decision making is fateful because it denies the decision makers a chance of evaluating possibilities of which it should be available (Moreland 1992, 124-155). Wishful thinking denies a proper process and lets down a decision making process. It brings down the process and an organization does not enjoy the fruits of a group decision making. This is also the optimism bias when making decisions. There can never be a perfect decision when this is part of the individuals in the group responsible for making the decision. They are tendencies to see things excessively positive, and this distorts an individual perception and thinking therefore, ruining the decision making process (Sniezek 1992, 124-155). Being over prospective should be avoided in every member of the group that makes decisions. Self-control and any other virtue that controls individuals in the session should be applied to help develop the best decision. They are the roots to sensible decision making and giving an organization something suitable for future operations. Ways of improving group decision-making To improve decision-making processes, a group needs to incorporate four main strategies including training, reflectivity, strategy development, and shared mental models. Training is appropriate in delivering developments in strategies used in-group decision-making as well as equipping the members to handle difficulties facing the groups in their pursuit of coming up with sound decisions (Hackman 2002, 68-87) through an improvement of their skills in decision making processes. West definition of reflexivity is, ‘‘the extent to which a defined group member overtly makes reflections upon the strategies, objectives, and processes of the group adapting them to the anticipated environmental circumstances’’ in groups, this concept (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246) compares to meta-cognition and reflective thinking in performance and learning process of individuals (Hackman 2002, 68-87). Inducing reflectivity in groups is a fantastic strategy of improving decisions made. It handles individual bias and groupthink, therefore, fostering group performance. The strategy is unquestionably a success when a cooperative group applies in decision-making. The main challenge comes in when there are disparities within the group that hinder application of the approach in decision-making (Moreland 1992, 124-155). Strategy development is the selection, adaptation and organization of actions and the development of alternatives including courses of action helping to change task requirements (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). It handles group think challenges in decision-making. Several Studies on this group performance strategy find it particularly relevant in making decisions. Strategy development is however, not sufficient alone in facilitating the improvements of decisions made by groups. It is somehow abstract and requires the support of other elements within the group (Mennecke 1997, 387-405). Shared mental models are relevant in handling individual bias within a group regarding their ability to make decisions, and it is the easiest to implement. The strategy involves shared cognition between members of the group to improve the coordination that is relevant in coordinating high performance, in teams (Weingarten 1992, 682-693). It helps do away with individuality and the specifics of preferences in the individuals within a group. The method is perfect especially in small groups because the members can conceptualize and narrow down the ideas for a comprehensive understanding. However, it is extremely difficult to apply this strategy especially in the case of a large group with different members who hold their individual attributes (Brodbeck et al. 2000, 234-246). Conclusion Browns Insurance Services case is a tactical one and improving decision-making demands the involvement of more than one strategy. The company has had delightful times in connecting with group decisions that facilitate its processes so far. Initial objectives of the company have been met, and the fact that the board can meet and arrive at a decision is the first positive to realizing that there is a hope in future decision-making. Not much is required in the case of Brown’s company apart from improving on the strategies when the board meets for the next meeting (Gladstein 1984, 499-517). First, it is in appreciation of the organization for choosing a small number of board members to sit as decision makers. The small number allows greater reflectivity levels, better strategy development and efficient shared mental orders. However, the CEO will have to do away with assumptions in the next meeting and incorporate the right strategies to facilitate the process. Taking the board away for a whole week does not necessarily guarantee authentic decision-making. The essence is not on time but on the group composition. The CEO will need to come up with a better-stratified group composing of individuals from all departments and consider the diversity of the age group. Incorporating individuals aging 45-50- only in the group narrows the level of diversity in creativity as well as innovations. There are younger people within the board that could serve a better role when incorporated in the group decision making for the organization. It would also be advisable to bring in a woman in the group the next time when planning for a group to make decisions in the group (Mennecke 1997, 387-405). The CEO incorporated eight men only in the group and did not compose a woman, which is a challenge. The next time the board meets, a reasonable ratio, ought to feature in the membership of the group to increase innovations lacking in this first phase of decision-making. References Brodbeck, F. et al (2000). Improving group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review. 234-246. Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context. A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, 29, 499–517. Guzzo, R. et al. (1986). Implicit theories and the evaluation of group process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 279–295. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams. Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. P.68-87. Mennecke, B. E. (1997). Using group support systems to discover hidden profiles: An examination of the influence of group size and meeting structures on information sharing and decision quality. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 47, 387–405. Moreland, R. (1992). Problem identification by groups. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 17–47. Sniezek, J. A. (1992). Groups under uncertainty: an examination of confidence in-group decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(1), 124–155. Weingarten, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693. West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp. 555–579). Read More