Systematically Outperform Groups May Be Both A Boon F 380622

Systematically Outperformgroups May Be Both A Boon For Example They

Systematically Outperformgroups May Be Both A Boon For Example They

Systematically Outperform Groups may be both a boon (for example, they statistically outperform individuals) and a bane (for example, they take too long) of decision making. While they can systematically outperform individuals, groups are also prey to systematic bias and organizational skewing. Consider the systematic decision-making processes of your own organization. Please respond to the following: · What are the group decision-making processes and structures in place at your current or with a previous employer that were designed to eliminate bias, create structure, and cultivate consistently better decisions? · Were the processes successful? Why, or why not? · How may the structure have facilitated organizational skewing? Write your initial response in 300–500 words. Your response should be thorough and address all components of the discussion question in detail, include citations of all sources, where needed, according to the APA Style, and demonstrate accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Due Friday May 26th

Paper For Above instruction

In organizational settings, decision-making processes are critical to achieving effective outcomes. My previous employer implemented several structured group decision-making processes designed to mitigate bias, enhance structure, and foster better decisions. These processes primarily included the use of diverse decision-making teams, structured brainstorming sessions, and the application of analytical tools such as the nominal group technique (NGT) and the Delphi method (Larrick, 2004). The overarching goal was to ensure that decisions were not dominated by individual bias and that various perspectives were incorporated systematically to improve decision quality.

One of the key processes was the formation of cross-functional teams tasked with strategic planning and problem-solving. These teams were composed of individuals from different departments to promote diverse viewpoints and prevent organizational skewing that might occur if decisions were made by homogenous groups. Additionally, the organization employed structured meetings with designated moderators, strict agendas, and time limits to avoid unproductive discussion and groupthink (Janis, 1972). The use of analytic hierarchy processes (AHP) further assisted by providing quantitative assessments to support decision outcomes, reducing reliance on intuition and subjective bias (Saaty, 1980).

The success of these processes was mixed. On the positive side, they generally resulted in more comprehensive decision-making, incorporating multiple perspectives that led to more innovative solutions and higher stakeholder buy-in. For instance, the Delphi method enabled continuous refinement of opinions from experts, which improved the accuracy of forecasts and strategic choices (Rowe & Wright, 1999). However, the processes were not without shortcomings. Sometimes, organizational hierarchy still exerted influence, subtly guiding discussions or suppressing dissenting opinions. Additionally, the time required for conducting multiple rounds of consensus-building delayed decision implementation, which can be detrimental in fast-paced environments (Hastie, 2015).

Organizational structure and process design can inadvertently facilitate organizational skewing despite procedural safeguards. For instance, hierarchical power dynamics may influence group members to conform to dominant voices, weakening the intended diversity of perspectives (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). Conversely, veto powers granted to senior executives can skew outcomes toward their preferences, undermining objective decision-making. Furthermore, when processes rely heavily on consensus without regard for minority views, they risk perpetuating biases and silencing innovative dissent (Nemeth, 1986).

In conclusion, while my previous employer’s structured decision-making processes demonstrated efforts to eliminate bias and enhance decision quality, they were not entirely immune to organizational skewing. Effective processes require continual refinement and awareness of inherent structural biases. Recognizing the organizational dynamics that facilitate skewing allows for designing more resilient decision frameworks that truly leverage diversity and collective intelligence.

References

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of Strategic Decision Making in High-Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737-770.

Hastie, R. (2015). The Decision Lab: Biases and Decision Making. Psychology Press.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.

Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 388–409). Blackwell.

Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32.

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353–375.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill.

meadow