|
Effective Meetings #6
Selecting a Group Decision-Making Process
|
| Introduction |
| Making
effective, quality, fair decisions is one of the more difficult activities
for a group. Group decision-making processes are often unstructured,
frequently consisting of people arguing their opinions and submitting
supporting evidence in an ad hoc fashion until somehow a generally
acceptable solution emerges. Yet how a decision is made often has
consequences beyond the decision itself. For example, if a faction
does not feel its voice was heard or believes the process was unfair,
there are likely to be negative consequences concerning their future
participation.
Groups use processes
(brainstorming, for example) to create and analyze alternatives,
and other processes to make decisions by selection from available
alternatives. This article focuses on group decision-making processes.
The question of this article is, "Given a set of circumstances,
what are guidelines that a group might use in selecting a decision-making
method?"
|
|
Basis for Choosing a Decision-Making Method
|
| Useful
criteria for selecting a group decision-making method inhere in the
characteristics of the situation. Here are three key situational characteristics
on which to base the selection of a method: |
| •
|
Time
Available to Make Decision.
The time frame in which the decision must be made. Outside factors
may require a specific due date. The cost of making the decision vs.
the value of the decision may also limit the time available. More
time and resources would be allocated to a decision regarding new
products and markets than to deciding where to hold the company holiday
party. |
| •
|
Buy-in
of Group. Buy-in refers to the degree to which group members
take ownership of the final decision. The likelihood that a decision
will be implemented is a function of the group's buy-in. When implementation
involves risks to or otherwise impacts on group members, a greater
degree of buy-in is usually required. For example, when there are
likely to be unknown major obstacles to implementation, or when there
are significant disagreements among those responsible for implementation,
or when there is an impact on group members' compensation and work
conditions, more buy-in is needed than when selecting a new office
copier. |
| •
|
Complexity.
In addition to the complexity inherent to a situation, complexity
stems from lack of satisfactory alternatives and from entrenched positions
with no apparent common ground among group members. |
Group Decision-Making Methods and Their Applications |
| These
are decision-making methods typically used by groups: |
| •
|
Autocratic:
One
person, typically the group leader, makes the decision, with or without
input from the group. This method has the advantage of speed, but
the quality of the decision, particularly in complex situations, is
limited by the capability of the single decision-maker. Buy-in is
likely to be minimal, particularly if the decision is not perceived
as fair. The autocratic method is most applicable where decision speed
and tight coordination are essential, such as in a military operation. |
| •
|
Plurality
vote: The decision is the alternative that receives more votes
than any other alternative. Advantages of this method include speed
(although it is not as fast as is possible with autocratic) and the
support of at least some substantial subgroup. There is also often
some perception of fairness, unless the same plurality repeatedly
dominates votes. With more than two alternatives, the winning decision
may be supported only by a minority.1
Plurality vote is often a good compromise between speed (there is
a decision after one vote) and gaining buy-in. The process is rarely
satisfactory for complex situations because it requires a clear set
of alternatives on which to vote, although there may be modification
of alternatives as different subgroups maneuver for votes. |
| •
|
Majority
or supermajority vote: The decision is the alternative that
receives at least 50%, or a specified higher percentage, of the votes.
Advantages include speed (relative to the methods below) and more
buy-in than plurality vote since the winning decision is supported
by at least a majority of the group. This method is typically used
where the issue is so important that it is worth taking more time
or having a higher hurdle for passage. For example, the US House or
Senate must have a 2/3 vote to overturn a presidential veto of a bill.
The disadvantages of the plurality vote process regarding complex
situations hold here as well, although the higher standard often requires
wider participation in crafting a solution. |
| •
|
Last
person standing: Discussion continues until advocates for
all but one alternative give up. A major disadvantage of this method
is the long time that it may take to reach a conclusion. While the
quality of the decision may be better than with the autocratic process,
the winning result may be based on its advocates' stamina rather than
its quality. Advantages include a minority with a significant concern
being able to hold up the decision until they are satisfied and the
airing of many points of view. Disadvantages include people leaving
the group because decision processes often take too long, are uncomfortable,
and may appear highly subjective. |
| •
|
Compromise:
The discussion continues until all participants agree on a
solution with which they can live. Typically, this involves each side
giving up something - often matched with the other side getting something
- until a mutually acceptable solution is reached. An advantage of
this method is at least the appearance of buy-in by most of the group.
Disadvantages include a potentially long decision-making process typically
leaving no one truly pleased with the solution. Furthermore, optimal
negotiating strategies involve deception concerning what is really
important to the parties, thereby inhibiting the creativity needed
for solving complex problems.2 |
| •
|
Consensus:
There is a decision only if every member of the group chooses
the same alternative as the best alternative, with no compromise.
This method is best when full group buy-in is required and when there
is a high need for creativity. Although there are potentially long
decision times, by establishing a few conditions, consensus need not
necessarily take longer than compromise.3 |
Putting this
Article into Action |
| For
each decision that a group must make, review the characteristics of
the situation and select a decision-making process. Generally, these
three key characteristics dictate which method should be used: |
| • |
Time
available to make decision |
|
| •
|
Level
of group buy-in required |
| •
|
Complexity
of the situation |
| In
general, the following guidelines apply: |
| Decision
Method |
Time
to Make Decision |
Buy-in
of Group Required |
Complexity
of Situation |
| Autocratic |
Very
Little |
Low |
Low |
| Plurality |
Little
- Medium |
Medium |
Low
- Medium |
| Majority |
Medium |
Medium+ |
Low
- Medium |
| Last
Person Standing |
Long |
Low
- Medium |
Low |
| Compromise |
Medium
- Long |
Medium++ |
Medium+ |
| Consensus |
Medium
- Long |
High |
High |
|
Summary |
| Different
circumstances call for different group decision-making methods. Consider
the circumstances in terms of the time to make a decision, the buy-in
required, and the complexity of the decision, and choose a decision-making
process accordingly. Autocratic and plurality vote are best when speed
is essential. Consensus is best when creativity and full group buy-in
are required. |
| -------- |
|
1. This is
the problem faced by many parliamentary democracies where no party
has more than 50% of the votes, resulting in complex and often fragile
coalitions.
2. See Effective Meetings #7:
Consensus: Creativity and Win-Win.
3. See Effective Meetings #8:
Using Consensus Effectively.
|
| |
Article
version 1
© 2003 Frontier Associates, Inc.
Permission is granted to reprint and distribute this article provided
that the copyright and source information are included. |
