What strategies do groups adopt when they have to make a decision? Are two heads always better than one? Is unity always strength? With this Psychology-Online article we will try to understand together the steps of the decision making process, how groups decide and why they sometimes intensify or nullify the differences between their members. We will see the phases of the decision-making process, the theories and mechanisms involved according to various authors, with personal and business examples.
What is decision making
What does the decision-making process consist of? The decision making consists in choose an option among several possibilities to resolve a situation. Making decisions is essential in all areas of life (personal, work, family, business…).
The moment of decision-making is very important in the life of a group, and can lead to an alteration of its internal dynamics: when the group must make a decision, it can call into question the balance previously achieved, causing a crisis, but can also represent the occasion when individual components carry out dynamic expulsions or integration of others.
When the group makes a decision, the individual components focus their attention on the objective aspects of the problem, thus activating predominantly cognitive and manifest thought processes about the structural aspects of the group; Less evident, however, is the fact that at the moment of the decision there are also variables of a subjective nature linked to the procedural aspects of the group.
The phases of decision making
The literature offers a series of new contributions to the Decision-making process: simple theoretical models that cover all necessary steps to guide to the participants in the decision, and what we will take into consideration – because among the most recognized by experts – consists of three phases articulated in seven steps: identification phase (recognition of opportunities, problems and crises, collection of relevant information and determination clarity of the problems), development phase (alternative solutions to the problems are generated and modified) and selection phase (alternative solutions to the problems are generated and modified).
1. Identify the decision
The first step in decision making is to identify the problem, and to make a decision, you have to identify the problem you want to solve, taking into account the critical or strategic factors that define it, as they hinder an adequate solution.
2. Collect relevant information
Once your decision has been identified, it is time to collect all the information relevant to that choice.
3. Identify the alternatives
With the relevant information at hand, you identify possible solutions to your problem, since – usually – there is more than one option to consider when trying to achieve a goal.
4. Develop alternative solutions
The main objective is to make the best possible decision among the alternative lines of action available, finding creative or original solutions.
5. Execute the decision
Once you have gathered all the relevant information, developed and considered possible paths forward, you are perfectly prepared to make a choice. After sorting through the options, you should choose the one that you consider has the greatest chance of achieving your goal; In some cases, you can combine several options, but in most cases, there will be a clear direction you want to take.
6. Take action
Once you have made your decision, act on it, and develop a plan to make your decision tangible and achievable.
7. Review the decision
The last and important step in the decision-making process is to evaluate the effectiveness of your decision, since monitoring allows you to identify its deficiencies or negative consequences, providing valuable feedback on which the decision can be reviewed or reconsidered.
The decisions that an individual makes every day are the result of a process to solve problems, small or large, which are called “heuristics”: a decision-making process that does not use all the logical-analytical paths described above, but that He takes advantage of mental “shortcuts” by relying on so-called “intuition” when evaluating the variables and information at his disposal and adapting decisions to the circumstances of time and place. Furthermore, the decision-making modalities depend on the type of task that must be faced.
Phases of group decision making
On the other hand the decision-making process in groups Forsyth (1990) usually has four phases:
- Orientation phase: includes the identification by the group of the task it intends to perform, the objective it intends to achieve and the strategies it must use to achieve it (in most cases, the type of objective determines the choice of strategies).
- Discussion phase: the team searches for information, identifies possible solutions and evaluates; Attempts to influence group members over others are very present in this phase, as well as in the following phase related to true decision-making.
- Decision phase: In the decision-making process, the group refers to some rules, implicit or explicit.
- Application phase: the group acts accordingly and evaluates its effectiveness.
However, decision-making requires that other factors be taken into account in addition to the group’s communication network: among these, for example, time pressure, the degree of group cohesion, the power actually in the hands of the leader, and his style of leading the group itself.
The time pressure
Some authors have shown that when a group must make a decision under time pressure, regardless of the type of task, it uses heuristics (simple and efficient rules for complex problems or incomplete information) and activates social processes of normative influence.
Group polarization
It is difficult for everyone to have the same opinion: there will always be a majority of people who think in one way, who propose to act along a certain line, and other people who will think differently. When a group discussion manages to generate a compromise, the position reflected in the group’s final norm is more moderate than the initial opinions of its individual members and an effect called depolarization occurs. On the other hand, when the initial intermediate position of a group moves towards a more extreme position after debate among group members, the process of group polarization occurs. However, this phenomenon cannot be generalized to any type of group, since it does not work for groups in which people do not know each other or do not have a leader, but it can occur in those in which there is a consolidated relational exchange.
groupthink
The polarization process can lead to a more consistent and certainly more damaging cognitive bias in the decision-making process: through his studies on decision-making, social psychologist Irving Janis concluded that it is often groups are more concerned with reaching consensus than with making the right decisiona phenomenon he called groupthink either groupthink.
In 1961, President Kennedy and his advisors attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro’s government by invading Cuba with 1,400 Cuban exiles trained by the CIA. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a true failure, due to the lack of study of Cuban territory and its defensive lines: when Kennedy planned the invasion he could count on a compact group of advisors, but critical information was not considered, but who gave his consent to the President’s faithful.
Next we do a theoretical analysis of group thinking (Janis and Mann, 1977):
Social conditions
- High cohesion
- Isolation from the group
- Lack of methodological research and evaluation procedures
- Management leadership
- High stress and low degree of hope in the search for a better solution than that preferred by the leader or other people considered influential
Seeking consensus: symptoms of groupthink
- Overestimation of the group: illusion of invulnerability; belief in the intrinsic morality of the group
- Narrow-mindedness: collective rationalization; outgroup stereotypes
- Pressures for uniformity: self-censorship; illusion of unanimity; direct pressure on dissidents; self-surveillance
Consequences of a flawed decision-making process
- Incomplete analysis of alternatives
- Incomplete analysis of objectives
- Failure to analyze risks in relation to the preferred option
- Search for insufficient information
- Selective bias in the rapid processing of information
- Failure to reconsider alternatives
- Failure in the preparation of mandatory projects
These symptoms not only lead to wrong decisions, but also disastrous and disastrous ones, and to counteract this process it is necessary to understand the reason and cause of groupthink: each of the causes mentioned corresponds to an attitude to combat them. Avoid group isolation, foster a critical mental attitudeactively encouraging dissent, minimizing leader intervention, encouraging self-criticism without fear of expressing doubts and objections, are scientifically proven strategies to reduce and counteract groupthink.
This article is merely informative, at Psychology-Online we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.
If you want to read more articles similar to The 7 steps of the decision-making processwe recommend that you enter our category.
Bibliography
- Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
- Janis, I.L., Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment.Free Press.
- Karau, S.J., Kelly, JR (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 542–571
- Leone, G., Mazzara, B.M., Sarrica, M. (2013). Social psychology. Mental processes, communication and culture. Rome: Laterza.
- Moscovici, S., Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135.
- Myers, D. G. (1983). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Panpatte, S., Takale, V. D. (2019). To study the decision making process in an organization for its effectiveness. The International Journal of Business Management and Technology3(1):2581-3889.
- Scialoja, P. (et al.) (1998). Social psychology of organizations. Naples: Alfredo Giunta Editore.