Problem-Solving and Decision-Making in Groups
Specific Decision-Making Techniques
Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 "Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques" reviews the pros and cons of each method.
Majority rule is a simple method of decision-making based on voting. In most cases, a majority is considered half plus one.
Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before deciding. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions. This is associated with democratic decision-making since each person gets one vote, and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person's vote. Still, since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases – for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution – a supermajority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.
Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has the final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert decides by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others, especially if the group members did not have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members' respect for the authority.
For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected them than those who did not. As with majority rule, this technique can be time-saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can control the decision-making process. This type of decision-making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators.
An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the
needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the
majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative
consequences throughout history. The White Afrikaner minority that ruled
South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, a system of
racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority
population. The quality of the decision and its fairness depends
on the designated expert or authority.
Consensus rule is a
decision-making technique in which all group members must agree
on the same decision. Sometimes a decision may be ideal for all
group members, leading to a unanimous agreement without further
debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that
this is not a sign of groupthink.
More typically, consensus is only reached after a lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because they invest in reaching it.
On
the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group
members can live with but is not ideal for all members.
Additionally, reaching a consensus also includes
conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal
tensions that may result.
Decision-Making Technique | Pros | Cons |
---|---|---|
Majority rule |
|
|
Minority rule by expert |
|
|
Minority rule by authority |
|
|
Consensus rule |
|
|
Table 14.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques
Getting Critical: Six Hats Method of Decision Making
Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts. (Edward de Bono, Six Thinking Hats, Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985).)
The method's popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:
- White hat. Objective – focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
- Red hat. Emotional – uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
- Black hat. Negative – focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
- Yellow hat. Positive – is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
- Green hat. Creative – tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks "outside the box".
- Blue hat. Philosophical – uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.
Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some "White Hat thinking" in order to process through facts and other available information.
During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of "Yellow Hat thinking" to identify potential positive outcomes, then "Black Hat thinking" to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then "Red Hat thinking" to get people's gut reactions to the previous discussion, then "Green Hat thinking" to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group's situation or completely new approaches.
At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.
- This decision-making method has been praised because
it allows group members to "switch gears" in their thinking and allows
for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can
this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you
think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
- What
combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the
larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking
would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White
together, or Red and White together, and so on?
- Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?