Which of the following is not one of the steps in facilitating group decision making

Chapter 13 - Formal Procedures for Group Decision Making

THIS CHAPTER WILL DISCUSS:

1. Procedures groups can use to conduct their discussions.
2. The circumstances under which each procedure is most effective.
3. How research has examined these procedures.
4. Computerized versions of these procedures.

INTRODUCTION

As we discussed earlier, it is difficult to judge the performance of a decision-making group. For example, is a new company policy the best one that the group in charge could have created? We have no standard we can use to judge the policy. Instead, the most objective method we can use to evaluate a decision-making group is to look at the procedure, or method, the group uses. We have discussed this idea several times in this book. For instance does the group take into account as many ideas as it can? Does it strive to evaluate these ideas as thoroughly as possible?

Hence, scientists have concentrated on the procedures that decision-making groups use. Even further, researchers have used their observations to make recommendations. They have proposed various formal decision-making procedures that groups can follow. Poole (1990, p. 55) defined these formal procedures as "sets of rules or guidelines which specify how a group should organize its process to achieve a particular goal."

These sets of rules, or guidelines, are the topic of this chapter, and we will be describing a number of them. Before we begin our discussion, we would like to highlight some general ideas about formal procedures.

Advantages of Formal Procedures

Behind the general ideas that we will examine is a unifying concept that formal procedures are helpful. Scientists believe that procedures improve the decision-making performance of groups. In an essay on the topic, Poole (1990) listed a number of reasons for this. All are based on the presumption that natural group discussion, or "free" discussion, is susceptible to serious problems. The purpose of formal procedures is to try to protect groups from these problems. The goal is to help groups avoid difficulties yet still let them take advantage of the potential strengths of group decision making.

We will describe Poole's eight reasons. Each explains why formal procedures can help groups improve their decisions.

Reason 1
First, scientists purposefully design formal procedures so that they are very different from free discussion. This helps groups avoid the dangers of complacency.

Free discussion can be safe and routine because it is the way groups usually make decisions. It follows, then, that formal procedures lead to "unnatural" discussions because groups do not usually use them. "Unnatural" discussions can be uncomfortable and difficult for group members. People who advocate formal procedures see this as a strength. They believe procedures can get group members out of ruts and sloppy habits of thinking. Being forced to act "unnaturally" can make members think more clearly and creatively than they normally do.

Reason 2
Second, formal procedures increase the likelihood that group members think about the same thing at the same time.

In free discussions, coordinating activities may be a problem. One member may be trying to analyze a problem, while a second is proposing a solution, and a third is trying to evaluate earlier proposals. Formal methods, on the other hand, tell members what they should be thinking about at stages of the discussion. This is advantageous because it increases the likelihood that group members stay on the same wavelength.

Reason 3
Third, formal procedures make it difficult for a few talkative members to dominate a group's discussion.

In free discussions one or two people tend to talk a disproportionately large amount of time. This tendency increases as group size increases. The less talkative members get shut out, and the group never hears their ideas. Certain formal procedures, however, can control how much members speak and in which order. These procedures can help ensure that all members have the opportunity to present their ideas. In addition, they make it less likely that a few people can dominate a group's discussion.

Reason 4
Fourth, formal procedures help curb powerful group members.

Powerful members can easily exploit free discussion and use it for their own purposes. This does not happen as easily under the guidelines of formal procedures. Guidelines make it more difficult for powerful members to control what happens during a meeting.

For example, in free discussion a powerful person could set the group rules for what members can and cannot discuss. With a formal procedure, however, the procedure itself determines the group rules. The whims of a powerful member do not have control.

Further, members can reinforce ground rules easier if the group is following a set procedure. Suppose that a group is trying to follow a formal procedure faithfully. Frank makes an inappropriate statement. Dan tries to enforce the procedure and says that Frank's comment was out of line. Frank will know that Dan is using the procedure's group rules as a basis for his judgment and not his own prejudices. Frank is therefore much more likely to accept Dan's judgment.

Reason 5
Fifth, formal procedures help groups deal successfully with conflict.

Without formal group rules, some groups may try to smooth over or ignore conflict. Still other groups may become embroiled in destructive conflict. This destructive conflict can come from power struggles or personality conflicts that have little to do with the substantive issues facing the group.

Procedures help groups deal with conflict in two ways. They force groups to face up to conflict, and they lay out rules as to when and how members can discuss disagreements. As a result, procedures increase the likelihood that groups will manage conflict successfully.

Reason 6
Sixth, formal procedures help give a sense of direction to meetings.

When members have a free discussion, they often feel that their meeting is getting nowhere or going around in circles. This can lead to great frustration. Consequently, members may come to a premature decision because they want to end the discussion quickly.

In contrast, under formal methods groups know at all times where they are in a discussion. They know how far along the decision process they have come and how far they have to go. Each step that members complete helps give them a feeling of accomplishment and progress. This makes it less likely that they will become frustrated and less likely that they will make their decision prematurely. Instead, their decision should be better because they take the time they need.

Reason 7
Seventh, formal methods give groups a basis for judging how well they are proceeding.

With free discussion group members often have no way to judge whether their group is handling its discussion well. Under formal guidelines, however, members can more easily determine whether the group is doing what it ought to be doing.

In addition, a procedure makes it more likely that members will evaluate themselves and examine whether they are doing a good job. The group as a whole can use the procedure as a basis for their evaluation. It can help them discuss and evaluate their discussion. This kind of reflection and self-examination is likely to help the group's future performance.

Reason 8
Eighth, a procedure can empower the group members.

Formal guidelines can give members the feeling that they are in control of their destiny as a group. This happens when members know they have followed a procedure well, managed conflict successfully, given all members an equal opportunity to participate, and as a result have made a good decision. Further, this feeling of control is not false if the members have indeed made a good decision after following the steps of a procedure. They truly are in greater control of their destiny than a free discussion group. A free group discussion allows the whims and prejudices of powerful members to control the decision-making process.

Advantages Can Be Problematic for Some

Given all these advantages, why do groups not jump at the opportunity to use procedures? Poole argued that the answer lies in the advantages themselves. These advantages are not seen as attractive by everybody, and indeed are often the reasons groups are less likely to adopt formal procedures.

Why would this be so? Let us go through some advantages and see how they might cause problems for some group members. The first advantage we noted was that procedures are "unnatural" and require effort. This may discourage less dedicated group members from wanting to try them. Another advantage that would be unattractive to some members is the way that procedures can restrict personal power. Members who wish to use group discussion to advance their pet proposals or personal status will fight any effort to use a procedure that will lessen their power. Similarly, members who just want to talk a lot will feel constrained by procedures that control their talk time. Finally, a procedure that makes conflict more open will threaten members who fear conflict.

Recommendations for Using Procedures

Further, groups are wary of formal procedures for other reasons. A procedure is no panacea for group problems. A formal method will scarcely help group members who lack the skills or motivation to think creatively and critically. Additionally, problems can develop if a group trusts one member to lead it through a method and follows that member blindly. The leader could exploit the procedure for personal benefit as easily as someone could exploit a free discussion. Thus, if a group is going to use a procedure, Poole recommended the following:
1. Train as many members as possible in the procedure.

2. Follow the original design of the procedure. Do not allow members to pressure the group into changing the procedure in a way that would damage its effectiveness. If members want to adapt a procedure, they should do so carefully. They should have knowledge about what they are doing and think about all implications of the changes.

3. If the discussion is particularly "touchy," a neutral facilitator should lead the group through the procedure. This does not absolve the members themselves, however, from learning and understanding the procedure.

4. Evaluate the group's performance after the decision is made. The members then should adopt any improvements that they will need for the next time they make a decision.

Researchers have created various formal group procedures. Some consist of extremely detailed rules; others are little more than general guidelines. Before we move on to the extremely detailed procedures, we will review some of the more general ideas.

GENERAL FORMAL PROCEDURES

Consensus Rules

Hall and Watson (1970) proposed six rules to help groups reach a mutually satisfying consensus. As we have discussed throughout this book, a consensus exists when all group members accept a proposal. The rules that Hall and Watson developed are:

1. Members should avoid arguing for their "pet" proposals.
2. Groups should avoid "us against them" stalemates in which each side in a dispute must either "win" or "lose."
3. Members should not comply with a group majority if they do so only to avoid conflict.
4. Groups should not use rules for decision-making that allow them to avoid conflict, such as a "majority wins" rule.
5. Groups should view differences of opinion among members as natural and helpful.
6. Members should consider that their early, initial agreements are suspect and premature.

Methods to Avoid Premature Decisions

Groups can make decisions prematurely if members do not examine their options sufficiently. General procedures have been proposed to help group members avoid premature decisions. We shall focus on two of these procedures: "devil's advocacy" and "dialectical inquiry." Both are similar to the methods that President Kennedy used to keep groupthink out of his group during the Cuban Missile Crisis (see Chapter 12).

Similarities
These procedures are similar. They are both based on the idea that faulty assumptions can cause problems for groups. The hypothesis is that one reason that groups often make premature decisions is that their members unwittingly accept the same basic assumptions about their group situation.

For example, an environmental organization is planning its activities for the next year. It must estimate how much money it will have available for activities. Members may all have assumptions about the money that the group can raise, and the organization may accept an estimate without questioning it. In the end, the group could come to a decision that leads it into financial difficulties.

Hence, the goal of both procedures is to help members examine their assumptions.

Another similarity between "devil's advocacy" and "dialectical inquiry" involves the way groups should begin their discussions. In both procedures, the decision-making group splits into two subgroups. One subgroup comes up with a preliminary decision. The members of this subgroup also list the assumptions they used to form their decision.

Differences
Beyond these similarities, the two procedures start to differ.

In devil's advocacy, the second subgroup prepares a criticism of the preliminary decision and the assumptions behind it. For example, half the planning group in the environmental organization decides on a list of activities. They also estimate the amount of money the organization can raise to pay for activities. The other half proceeds to criticize this preliminary decision. It may reject the decision on the grounds that the assumptions about the money available are too high. The first subgroup then proposes a second preliminary decision in response to the criticisms from the devil's advocacy group. A second list of assumptions is behind this new proposal. What happens next? The second subgroup again criticizes this new decision and the assumptions behind it. Hence, the devil's advocacy procedure sets up a cycle in which groups go back and forth between proposals and criticisms. This cycle continues until the first subgroup comes up with a decision that the second subgroup can accept.

In dialectical inquiry, the second subgroup does not merely criticize the first subgroup's preliminary decision and assumptions but proposes an alternative, based on a different set of assumptions. In the environmental organization, the second subgroup believes that the first group has assumed a level of available income that is too high. Therefore, the second subgroup proposes fewer planned activities. The two subgroups then come together to compare ideas. They look at the feasibility of both proposals and at the accuracy of each one's underlying assumptions. This discussion continues until the entire group reaches a consensus. They must agree on the most valid set of assumptions. Based on those assumptions, they make a final decision (see Mason, 1969, for a description of both devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry).

General Methods vs. Detailed Procedures

We have discussed several general procedures, such as the consensus rules that Hall and Watson created and the devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry methods. These general methods can be valuable aids to group decision making. None of them, however, details a procedure that groups should use to govern their actual decision-making process. The procedures that we will examine next attempt to provide such details.

EXPLANATION OF DETAILED FORMAL PROCEDURES

"Linear" Models

All the methods we will examine are linear models. In other words, the models assume that a sequence of stages is important in any decision-making task. The idea is that groups perform best when they divide discussion into a small number of distinct stages. The stages may be, for example, "idea generation," "idea evaluation," and "choice of the best idea." The group should perform each stage in sequential order and never go back to a previous stage once the group has moved on to the next stage in the discussion.

Differences

In general, the procedures we will examine differ in two ways. First, theorists make slightly different claims about the degree to which groups should allow members to speak freely. Most models prefer comcon networks, in which all members can talk to one another freely. One method we will describe, however, leans toward a wheel-like structures, in which communication flows through a central member.

Second, and more important, the procedures assume different views of group members' decision-making capabilities. As we discussed in the last chapter, various theories are concerned with people's capabilities when it comes to making decisions. Some of the models we are about to examine assume that people have the ability to optimize totally. Others claim that people are able to use only the grossest satisficing methods. In between these two extremes are some models that compromise between optimizing and satisficing. If you are ever in the position of planning a group decision-making meeting, you should remember these factors as you choose the procedure the group will use. You need to consider your beliefs about the decision-making abilities of the people who will be responsible for the group's verdict.

Our Examination

We will now examine some detailed procedures. We are going to make some suggestions concerning the proper circumstances for using each of the procedures that we will discuss. At this time, except for one case, our recommendations will be based on the logical implications of the models and not on experimental evidence. Later in this chapter, we will discuss research concerning these procedures.

Let us begin our discussion. For our purposes, we will focus on one decision-making task. Let us see how each procedure works when a group must decide on a menu for dinner. We shall call our group the "Diner's Club."

BRAINSTORMING

Brainstorming is a technique to help groups generate proposals for alternative courses of action. It was not intended as a method for carrying out the entire decision-making process. Osborn (1957) proposed the idea of brainstorming. He believed it was a way to help people make more creative proposals than they otherwise could have.

As you recall, we distinguished in Chapter 2 between theorists who are wholists and those who are reductionists. Wholists believe that people perform tasks better when they are members of a group than when they are alone. In contrast, reductionists believe that people perform tasks better when they work alone than when they are in groups. Osborn was a firm believer in wholism. He believed that people working in groups have the potential to generate more ideas and more creative ideas than when they work alone.

Osborn also believed, however, that people often do not realize this potential because individuals working in groups are often afraid that other group members will evaluate their ideas negatively. People are particularly afraid that the group will dislike their "craziest" notions. Therefore, group members often are afraid to express their ideas in public. This is a significant drawback because "crazy" ideas are sometimes the most creative and best solutions to problems. Hence, Osborn wanted to provide a technique for generating ideas in groups that would make people comfortable enough to express even their most "off-the-wall" ideas. To do this, he created the brainstorming method.

Brainstorming is easy. The first step is to choose a person to write down all the proposals that the group generates. Next, the members call out their ideas. They do so under unique conditions:

1. Under no circumstances can members evaluate any proposal. Encouragement is fine, but the group does no evaluating until a later stage. Osborn believed that people are apprehensive about suggesting their ideas because they are afraid that others will evaluate these ideas negatively. Therefore, if the group follows the rule that members cannot evaluate proposals, people should feel free to express any ideas that they have. Brainstorming will not work unless the group strictly follows this first rule. If any member begins to evaluate a proposal, the group must enforce the rule by gently reminding the group as a whole not to evaluate ideas.

2. The members should attempt to generate as many proposals as they can. A large quantity of options should ensure that at least a few of them will be good.

3. Participants should "freewheel," that is, attempt to come up with the wildest proposals they can imagine. Most of these ideas will no doubt be bad, but one of them may instead turn out to be a stroke of genius.

4. Members should "piggyback," that is, generate ideas that build on suggestions of other group members.

Example
The Diner's Club brainstorms about dinner suggestions, following the conditions set forth above. They arrange their ideas in columns and find that they have the following list:

As you can see, the Diner's Club has a wide range of ideas for dinner. Did brainstorming help the group? If so, how much? The effectiveness of the brainstorming technique is variously regarded.

Effectiveness of Brainstorming

Brainstorming is most appropriate when the group's task is specific and fairly limited in range. Under these conditions, the technique will lead to proposals that are most likely to be feasible and least likely to be so numerous that they overwhelm the group.

A disadvantage of brainstorming is that the sheer number of options can force a group to spend a great deal of time evaluating possible courses of action. Further, members express many potentially good ideas in a vague form as they brainstorm. Consequently, the group needs a great deal of time to formulate more precise versions of these options to evaluate them properly.

Brainstorming Experiments

Scientists have conducted many experiments in an attempt to discover whether or not brainstorming actually does what Osborn intended. In Chapter 2 we described the work of problem-solving groups. As you recall, the best way to study problem-solving groups is to compare them with "nominal groups" of the same number of people working alone writing down their ideas. We will call this second method the silent generation of proposals. In this way, researchers can compare the quality and quantity of ideas coming from groups and from same-size aggregates. This is also the best technique for studying brainstorming.

Lamm and Trommsdorff Review
Lamm and Trommsdorff (1972) reviewed a number of brainstorming studies. Their findings are not encouraging. In one part of their review, Lamm and Trommsdorff looked at 12 experiments. In 9 of the 12, nominal groups performing silent generation produced more nonduplicative ideas than actual brainstorming groups. The remaining 3 found no difference between aggregates and brainstorming groups. Lamm and Trommsdorff also reviewed 8 studies that looked at the quality of ideas generated. Six of these found that nominal groups generated ideas that were, overall, superior to those of brainstorming groups.

Philipsen, Mulac, and Dietrich Study
Why do brainstorming groups produce less and poorer ideas than nominal groups? Is it because brainstorming somehow decreases people's individual abilities to come up with ideas? A study by Philipsen, Mulac, and Dietrich (1979) provides evidence against this possibility. Participants performed two brainstorming tasks, which were each separated into two stages. In the preliminary stage of the first task, group members worked together for 12 minutes and made verbal proposals for solving a problem. During the second stage of this task, the members separated. They then silently generated ideas in response to the same problem for 12 minutes.

For the second task, participants worked alone the entire time. During the first stage of this task, participants took 12 minutes to make individual verbal proposals for solving a problem. In the second stage, just as in the first task, they silently generated ideas for the same problem for 12 minutes.

The researchers looked at the first stage of each task and compared the participants' performance. They found, as expected, that nominal groups verbalized more nonduplicative proposals than brainstorming groups during this stage. The aggregates averaged 41 ideas; the brainstorming groups averaged only 23.

The experimenters then compared the second stage of each task. Members of nominal and brainstorming groups wrote down the same number of proposals, an average of 35. The researchers also judged that the quality of the ideas was similar. These findings suggest that members of brainstorming groups may have the potential to generate as many, and as good, ideas as people in nominal groups.

Thus, brainstorming does not harm people's individual decision-making capacities. Therefore, there is something else going on during brainstorming sessions that harms idea generation. Several possible reasons for these findings have been suggested:

1. Members may continue to fear criticism and, therefore, withhold proposals, even though the conditions of brainstorming forbid criticism.
2. Brainstorming groups may spend too much time in task-irrelevant talk.
3. People in the groups may become overaroused, causing them not to be at their psychological best for creative work.
4. Dominant and talkative participants might monopolize the brainstorming discussion, preventing other members from making their suggestions.
5. As they do with additive tasks, members of brainstorming groups may engage in "social loafing" (see Chapter 2).

Although all five of these proposals are probably correct from time to time, research by Diehl and Stroebe (1987) suggests that the most important reason may be a sixth. In a group brainstorming session, there is often a delay between the time when a group member thinks of an idea and the time the member can contribute the idea to the group. This is because other members are usually speaking. During that time, members are prone to either forget their idea or, contrary to the rules of brainstorming, suppress it. Further, when group members listen to one another's proposals, they are often distracted from thinking of ideas themselves. In short, brainstorming leads to production blocking, or the inability to concentrate on idea generation and verbalization. This problem does not occur in silent idea generation, in which people can concentrate on ideas and write them down as soon as they think of them.

It follows from the concept of production blocking that increasing the size of a brainstorming group will not increase the number of ideas generated, despite the extra people. More members means more difficulty getting the floor and more other people to listen ti, thus increase production blocking. This implication was supported in research by Bouchard and Hare (1970). The number of ideas generated by brainstorming groups with 5, 7, and 9 members was compared with the number of ideas generated by nominal groups of 5, 7, and 9 individuals brainstorming alone. The individuals in the 5-person nominal groups generated more than 100 ideas on average, and this number increased to about 140 for the 7-person nominal groups and 175 for the 9-person. The real brainstorming groups, no matter their size, only generated about 60.

General Conclusions

Thus the advantages of silent idea generation over brainstorming are real. Nominal groups doing silent idea generation tend to produce ideas higher in quality and quantity than brainstorming groups. This does not necessarily imply that people should always generate proposals when they are alone instead of when they are in groups. For example, brainstorming is fun. The maintenance advantages it provides groups may outweigh the loss of quality and quantity of ideas. Another consideration is that the experience of brainstorming may improve the ability of group members to work together during the subsequent stages of decision making (Philipsen et al., 1979). Thus, the group experience of generating ideas together still may be worthwhile, despite the experimental findings.

Further, it is important to note that brainstorming groups produce more ideas than groups with that have no procedure for generating proposals. Kramer, Kuo, and Dailey (1997) explored this notion in their research. Five member groups were asked to develop a two-hour orientation program for high school students visiting their university. Groups generated ideas either through either silent generation, brainstorming, or free discussion. Once again, silent generation led to the most proposals, but brainstorming also led to more ideas than free discussion. Further, brainstorming groups were equally satisfied with their decision process and their communication as silent generation groups and more satisfied than free discussion groups. Therefore, if group members are going to generate ideas together, brainstorming may be a good method for doing it.

THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

In this section we will describe the procedure called the Nominal Group Technique, or NGT, proposed by Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1975). This procedure is a complete method for decision making, moving from idea generation to the final decision. It also provides a procedure for generating ideas, which has both advantages and disadvantages in comparison with the brainstorming technique.

Description

So far in this book, we have used the term "nominal groups" to denote groups that do not actually meet. Instead, several individuals work alone to create the products of nominal groups. NGT maintains that members of a nominal group do meet. The technique, however, discourages interaction among group participants. Members interact directly with an assigned group leader instead of with one another. Thus, the model attempts to establish a wheel network. We should not overemphasize the analogy between NGT and the wheel structure, however. Members in a group using NGT do see one another and hear one another's messages. Hence, the group structure is not exactly a wheel.

NGT consists of the following six-step procedure:

Step I--Silent Generation of Ideas. The leader first presents the group with the issue that it needs to resolve. For example, the leader of the Diner's Club might ask, "What should we cook for dinner?" Next, the leader and the other group members work individually, silently writing a list of alternative courses of action. They have a predetermined amount of time in which to do this. For instance, the leader of the Diner's Club could give the group five minutes to write ideas. If someone disrupts this silent, independent activity, the leader should speak to the group as a whole rather than to the guilty person. For instance, the leader might say to the group, "Please, we should be working alone right now.''

Step 2--Round-Robin Recording of Ideas. Under direction of the leader, the members take turns speaking. One at a time, the leader and all members each present one proposal to the group. The leader writes down the ideas, in the form of short phrases, on a sheet of paper, chalkboard, or similar medium and places the list so that it is clearly within each member's sight. The leader should try to phrase a member's proposal in the same wording that the member used. Alternatively, the leader can ask for the member's approval if any paraphrasing of the idea is necessary. Participants continue taking turns and offering one proposal at a time until no new ideas are forthcoming. Members should not restrict themselves by saying only the alternatives that they have written on their personal lists. They should voice any further ideas that come into their minds during this period. As in brainstorming, the participants should piggyback on the ideas of one another. If a person has no new proposals when his or her turn comes around, the person should say "Pass" and give the floor to the next member. People who pass may reenter when their turn comes again if they think of new ideas. If all members pass on any round, the leader should declare that Step 2 is over.

Step 3--Serial Discussion for Clarification. Starting at the top of the list, the leader covers each proposal in turn. He or she leads a group discussion to ensure a common understanding of each alternative. As the leader comes to each new item on the list, the member responsible for the idea can take the major role in the discussion. The group should, however, encourage all members to express their thoughts about the meanings and implications of all ideas. The rules for this discussion include keeping evaluation to a minimum and not allowing arguments about the ideas. The leader is responsible for enforcing these rules. Again, if someone breaks a rule, the leader should criticize the group as a whole rather than the guilty person.

Step 4--Preliminary Vote on Item Importance. The intention of this step is to shorten the list of alternatives. The group does this by eliminating proposals that have little support among group members. To do so, participants work silently. They rate each idea and write down their ratings on a piece of paper. The members use a predetermined method to rank each alternative. One method is for each person to choose five favorite ideas and rank-order them with number one being the favorite. Ideas that do not fall into these top five do not receive a ranking. If the Diner's Club used this method of ranking, the members' lists might look like Table 13.1.

After members complete their rankings, they hand in their sheets of paper to the leader. The leader should shuffle the papers to maintain member anonymity. He or she then tallies the rankings for each proposal on the chalkboard, large paper, or whatever else he or she is using to display the proposals. The group then looks at the rankings and eliminates the alternatives that most group members do not support. The members attempt to retain five to ten ideas that they can discuss further. In our example, the Diner's Club might retain the alternative that three members approve, such as steak, spaghetti and meat sauce, chow mein, and tacos. The group might further add salad because it was one member's favorite choice.

An alternative ranking method is to have members rate each proposal on a scale from "0" to "10." "Zero" would indicate a terrible idea, and "10" would represent a great proposal. The members could then eliminate the proposals that most members feel are poor ideas.

Step 5--Discussion of the Preliminary Vote. The intention of this step is to allow members to study the remaining proposals further in preparation for a final vote. Again, the group looks at each alternative in turn. Members should raise any additional questions that they might have about the meanings and implications of the proposals. Evaluation of the ideas is again discouraged.

Step 6--Final Vote. Members once again individually evaluate the remaining proposals and write their judgments on paper. The leader again anonymously tabulates the ratings, or rankings, and writes them on the paper or chalkboard in front of the group. The idea that the group members evaluate most highly becomes the group choice.

Advantages

Looking over the steps of the model, we can see that Delbecq et al. designed the NGT to restrict the flow of communication among group members. In addition, the rules of the technique make it difficult for the group as a whole to evaluate the proposals or argue about them. Members cannot easily become aware of one another's feelings concerning the proposals. Thus, when a leader fears that free group discussion will lead to undesired conflict among members, NGT is a good technique for the group to use. In addition, the method is effective in situations in which members are strangers and may feel uncomfortable disclosing their preferences. The procedure is also effective if participants wish to keep their opinions secret.

In short, NGT depersonalizes group decision making. The method is a good defense against the effects of overly talkative or dominant members. It ensures that all participants have an equal opportunity to propose courses of action. Through the use of a paper-and-pencil rating, it also guarantees that all will have equal input for choosing the best proposal.

Further, we can best characterize NGT as compromise between optimizing and satisficing procedures. The technique is not really a satisficing method, in that it is likely to lead to an optimal decision. Unlike a truly optimizing model, however, NGT does not maintain that people are capable of doing many calculations at once. It does not claim that members can deal with all the information necessary for making the optimal choice at the same time. Instead, the technique has the group narrow the number of proposals to a rather manageable number in Step 4. The group then has only a few ideas left to consider during the final study stage of Step 5.

Disadvantages

The use of NGT also has several disadvantages. For one thing, it is time-consuming. For another, it is relatively boring for a group to go through the NGT stages. The technique may also suppress "off-the-wall" ideas because, unlike brainstorming, idea generation and expression are different steps in the procedure. The time between the two allows members to think about their proposals and perhaps choose not to say the most free-wheeling of them aloud. The person might feel uncomfortable letting the group inspect a somewhat strange idea.

To circumvent this potential problem, a leader may choose to omit the silent writing of ideas described in Step 1 and replace this step with a brainstorming session. This substitution can work as long as the leader feels that the members are sufficiently comfortable with one another and that none of the participants will become overly dominant.

Thus, NGT has advantages and disadvantages. Since its creation, groups have found it useful for certain situations.

Table 13.2 summarizes the steps in the Nominal Group Technique.

TABLE 13.2 Summary of steps in Nominal Group Technique.

Step 1 - Silent generation of ideas

Step 2 - Round-robin recording of ideas

Step 3 - Serial discussion for clarification

Step 4 - Preliminary vote on item importance

Step 5 - Discussion of the preliminary vote

Step 6 - Final vote

Now we shall move on to another procedure that groups have been using for several decades.

REFLECTIVE THINKING

The Reflective Thinking procedure is an attempt to provide groups with an optimizing decision-making method. It is based on the work of the philosopher John Dewey (1910). Dewey proposed that people generally follow a series of steps when they think "reflectively." He believed that people make "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends" (p. 6).

Dewey's Hypothesis

In Dewey's view, a reflective thinker goes through the following stages when considering a problem:

1. The person feels that a ''difficulty'' or problem exists in the present situation or course of action. This problem exists due to any of the following causes:

a. The situation and a desired goal are different. For example, the person wishes to reach a town but is lost.

b. An inconsistency exists among known facts and/or beliefs. For instance, the person reaches a town that he or she thought was the destination, but the town has a different name than the person thought it would.

c. An inconsistency exists between events as they have occurred and the expectation of how they should occur. These expectations are based on rules or laws. The person thought that walking westward would lead him or her to the town, for instance, but instead the person became lost.

2. The person locates and defines the difficulty as precisely as possible and looks for the causes of the problem. This step requires that the reflective thinker use "suspended judgment." This means making an active attempt not to accept the most available cause or explanation for the difficulty without additional reflection. In more modern terminology, the person must make an effort not to use a simplified heuristic when making a judgment. For instance, why does the town have a different name than the person expected? The most available explanation might be that the person is lost. He or she should not simply accept this, however. Is it perhaps the same town with a different name? Is the town the person wants simply very close by? Further questions can follow.

3. The person forms an image of the ideal solution to the difficulty. This image includes the characteristics of the ideal solution and what the ideal solution would accomplish. In our example, the ideal solution would succeed in getting her or him to the town being sought.

4. The reflective thinker proposes a set of theories, hypotheses, or solutions that may solve the problem. For example, the person is in the right town, or the person needs to take a different road.

5. The person evaluates the proposals. Using the results from the third step, the person knows the requirements for an optimal solution. He or she compares the proposals with these requirements and chooses the most reasonable solution. For instance, if the person decides that he or she is lost, he or she then decides, based on evaluation, that the optimal solution to this dilemma is to take another road.

6. The reflective thinker finally makes further observations and tests to see if the choice is correct. The person asks directions and further discovers where he or she should be heading.

Description

In Chapter 12, we discussed research that suggests that people may not normally make decisions in an orderly process, such as the one that Dewey envisioned above. Nevertheless, scientists have used Dewey's proposal as the basis for a decision-making model. The model uses Dewey's ideas to suggest how people and groups should make decisions. As we have stated, the resulting model is the Reflective Thinking procedure. It is an optimizing method that uses a comcon communication network. As long as all group members know how to use the procedure, an assigned leader is unnecessary. If this is not the case, an assigned leader who is familiar with the technique should lead the group.

The Reflective Thinking method uses the following steps, each with its own set of questions:

Step I--Awareness of the Difficulty

a. "What is a precise definition of the difficulty?" To answer this question, the group states the problem. For example, the Diner's Club might ask, "What should we cook for dinner?" The group then must come to an agreement about the meanings of the important terms in this statement. For instance, does the term "dinner" mean only a meal that people eat late in the day? Does it also imply that the meal is large?

b. "What are the symptoms of the difficulty? How has the problem manifested itself? Whom does it hurt, and how does it hurt them? Under what conditions does it harm them?" In the case of the Diner's Club, the symptom is hunger. It affects the members of the group by making them uncomfortable.

c. "How big is the problem? Is it getting worse?" For the members of the Diner's Club, it is late in the day, and the symptom of hunger is getting worse.

d. "What are the implications of the difficulty in the future?" The members might answer, "If we do not eat, we will eventually become weak and irritable."

e. "What is being done at present to meet the problem? In what ways are these efforts ineffective?" In the case of the Diner's Club, nothing is being done. No one is making dinner.

Step 2--Analysis of the Problem

a. "What causes led to the present difficulty? What conditions exist in the situation that allow the causes to act as they do?" For the Diner's Club, the problem is that they have nothing planned for dinner. This difficulty occurred because they did not think about it earlier. Conditions kept them from thinking about dinner. They were working hard on an important project of planning a group trip to a gourmet festival, and they were not yet hungry. Hence, when they got together to plan their club's dinner, it was already late. A fundamental cause for the members' difficulty is that people must eat to live, and the club is now together in order to eat.

b. "Which causes are major and which are secondary?" The major reason for the difficulty is that the club members failed to think about it. Their not being hungry earlier should not have kept them from thinking about it, and thus this cause is actually minor. Indeed, the members are now hungry; so the cause has become irrelevant to the present situation.

c. "What direction should our approach take?" The group must make a decision concerning which aspect of the problem the best course of action should address. Should it deal directly with the fundamental cause? Should it instead focus on the less important causes or on the symptoms? Ideally, people wish to deal with the fundamental cause of a difficulty, which is often impractical. In the case of the Diner's Club, members must accept that people must eat to live. They can then deal with the problem of deciding what to eat.

d. "Which requirements must a satisfactory solution meet?" This is perhaps the most difficult part of the Reflective Thinking procedure; yet it is an extremely important step if the group wants to perform the procedure well. Here, the group generates a list of criteria that an optimal proposal must meet. Scientists who advocate the Reflective Thinking procedure have not taken a stand regarding how the group should generate this list of solutions. Perhaps an abbreviated NGT procedure would suffice. Members could follow steps 1 through 4 of NGT, for example. In general, some criteria that would concern the group would be the extent to which the proposal would eliminate the difficulty and its symptoms and the extent to which the course of action is feasible in terms of time, person-power, expense, and material. In the case of the Diner's Club, the group decides that tonight's dinner must meet the criteria of (1) taking less than an hour to cook, (2) being relatively easy to prepare, (3) requiring foods that are on hand in a condition that the members can use (for example, the food cannot be frozen), and (4) being plentiful enough to feed the entire group.

e. "Must a course of action observe any 'boundaries'?" By "boundaries," we mean capability and feasibility values. The existence of boundaries might suggest the need for additional criteria for an optimal proposal. For example, cooking a steak might be sufficient for solving the difficulty, and it is feasible as well. If the group includes some vegetarians, however, a steak would present a problem. It would go beyond the boundaries that a course of action should observe for the group. For our purposes, however, let us assume that the Diner's Club would like its dinner to meet a certain aesthetic level. This would become the group's fifth criterion.

Step 3--Suggestions of Possible Solutions

As with question "d" above, the Reflective Thinking procedure does not provide a method for listing possible solutions. A group may choose its own technique. For instance, members could choose to brainstorm proposals. Another technique would be to perform steps 1 and 2 of the NGT procedure. Let us assume that in this step the Diner's Club comes up with the same list of proposed foods that it generated in the example of NGT.

Step 4--Evaluation of Solutions

This step includes the major aspect of Step 3 in the NGT model. Both steps emphasize that this is the time when members should come to understand the meanings and implications of each proposed course of action. The evaluation of solutions in Reflective Thinking, however, goes far beyond Step 3 of NGT. Groups using Reflective Thinking take each idea in turn and evaluate it. Evaluation is performed by judging the proposals in terms of the extent to which they met the criteria and boundaries that the group set in Step 2. In our example of the Diner's Club, the group makes the judgments shown in Table 13.3.

As you can see, the group judged that all of the suggestions were sufficiently quick and easy. It appears, however, that the group members do not have steak, hot dogs, pork chops, Chinese or Mexican foods available. They do have enough ground beef for meat sauce, but they do not have enough for hamburgers. Sandwiches do not meet the aesthetic standards of the group. This means that the members are left with only two alternatives that meet both the criteria and boundaries that they have set for their dinner. These choices are spaghetti and meat sauce and salad. Rather than trying to decide between them, the group opts to make them both.

Step 5--Implementation of Chosen Solution
Reflective Thinking does not include a special process for this step. As with NGT, a group needs to repeat all the steps in order to plan how it will implement its decisions. This time the new difficulty will be "How will we prepare the spaghetti and salad?" The steps will start all over again with this new question.

Advantages

As with all techniques, the use of the Reflective Thinking procedure has both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, the model leads group members to explore each proposal methodically. It can also help members make decisions in as optimizing and unbiased a manner as possible. The procedure can do this because it separates "problem analysis," "solution generation," and "solution evaluation." The model also has an air of objectivity because it uses criteria as the major basis for evaluating proposals. This objectivity may help to soften the hard feelings that could result if the group does not accept certain members' "pet" ideas.

Disadvantages

The Reflective Thinking model does have some drawbacks. One weakness is that the method assumes that people can reach consensus on criteria. This idea, in turn, presupposes that group members have a common set of values. Such values would include, for instance, what is important and what is not. For example, woe to the Diner's Club if half its members hungrily demanded a lot of food quickly, while the other half preferred to spend time preparing something really good! It may be difficult for members to agree about criteria.

Further, the model assumes that people have the ability to optimize fully. In particular, the method holds that people can think of criteria for judging solutions before they think of the solutions themselves, which is extremely difficult. It is more "natural" to think of criteria while judging proposals. Groups that use the Reflective Thinking procedure can fall into this "natural" process; the problem is that groups may neglect to evaluate certain proposals against all criteria. For example, in discussing its third alternative solution, a group may think of a new criterion that is particularly relevant. The group could go back and judge the first two solutions against this new criterion also. However, a group may neglect to do this. If this happens, the first two proposals have an unfair advantage. As you know, a solution will remain in the running as long as it does not fail to meet a criterion. This means that the fewer criteria that a group uses to evaluate a proposal, the less likely the possibility that the group will reject the idea. Therefore, in this case, it is unfair if the group judges the third proposal against one more criterion than the first two options. This would mean that the third option unfairly has a greater chance of being rejected.

A group can solve this difficulty by conducting a preliminary evaluation of proposals. During this preliminary discussion, the group can uncover new criteria as it examines the proposals. The group can then go back and perform a final evaluation, in which the members judge solutions against all the criteria. The problem with using both a preliminary and a final evaluation period is that it makes the procedure take even longer than usual.

Keeping these drawbacks in mind, it appears that groups should save the Reflective Thinking technique for two basic circumstances: (1) when the problem is very important and the group has a lot of time and patience for solving it and (2) when a standard set of criteria already exists that the group can use to evaluate proposed courses of action.

Table 13.4 summarizes the steps in Reflective Thinking.

TABLE 13.4 Summary of steps in Reflective Thinking.

Step 1. Awareness of the difficulty

A. What is a precise definition of the difficulty?

B. What are the symptoms of the difficulty? How has the problem manifested itself? Whom does it hurt, and how does it hurt them? Under what conditions does it hurt them?

C. How big is the problem? Is it getting worse?

D. What are the implications of the difficulty in the future? What results can be expected if the problem is not solved?

E. What is being done at present to meet the problem? In what ways are these efforts ineffective?

Step 2. Analysis of the problem

A. What causes led to the present difficulty? What conditions exist in the situation that allow the causes to act as they do?

B. Which causes are major and which are secondary?

C. What direction should our approach take? Should it deal with major causes, secondary causes, or symptoms of the problem?

D. Which requirements must a satisfactory solution meet? Do they include any of the following general criteria: the extent to which the proposal would eliminate the difficulty, the extent to which the proposal is feasible in terms of time, person-power, expense, and material? Are any further criteria specific to this difficulty?

E. Must a course of action observe any "boundaries"? Do social customs, institutions, laws and soon place a boundary on the feasibility of possible solutions? Should any of these serve as additional criteria that possible solutions should meet?

Step 3. Proposal of possible solutions

(perform through the use of either brainstorming or the silent generation of ideas)

Step 4. Evaluation of possible solutions

A. To what extent would each proposal meet each criterion for a satisfactory solution?

B. Which proposal best meets the criteria?

Step 5. Implementation of chosen solution

(perform through the repetition of the entire procedure)

INCREMENTALISM

As you know, the Reflective Thinking decision procedure demands that group members follow steps that lead to extreme optimization. This is often difficult for members to do. Incrementalism, a satisficing model, is one reaction to this difficulty.

Lindblom (1959), who created incrementalism, observed that "real life" decision makers in industry and government tend to consider only a narrow range of alternative solutions. These alternatives differ by only a small, or "incremental," degree from the status quo. Lindblom did not call this "narrow-mindedness" and criticize these decision makers. Instead, he praised the virtues of their "incremental" procedure. Lindblom's praise was based on his conviction that attempts at optimization are doomed to fail. Why did Lindblom believe this?

First, Lindblom agreed with Simon's argument that optimization is impossible because it is too demanding on our cognitive capabilities. Second, Lindblom observed that optimization requires group members to know a great deal of information about consequences and alternatives. Decision makers will possess this information if they have had previous experiences that are similar to their present situation; however, they will not have the knowledge if the circumstances are new to them. If people attempt to optimize in situations in which information is scarce, they are doomed to failure.

Third, optimization requires group members to agree on underlying values. There must be a consensus. This does not often exist when people are grappling with large, complex problems. Even an individual will have difficulty formulating a consistent set of underlying values to use as a basis for decision making. Fourth, the costs of optimization are prohibitive in resources and person-power. In addition, attempts at optimization are very time-consuming. By the time the group reaches a decision, the solution may no longer be applicable. For example, a plan to save a business from bankruptcy may be very slow in coming. If it is too slow, the business may be gone before the company can implement the plan.

As you can see, Lindblom found many reasons for believing that the process of optimization has many problems. He believed that the "incrementalist" procedure would alleviate all these problems. Decision makers can adopt Lindblom's procedure by using the following process:

1. List only those alternatives that differ "incrementally" from the status quo. These differences are based on the known or expected consequences of the alternatives. In addition, the solutions must be clearly feasible in terms of time, money, and effort to implement.

2. Compare each alternative, in turn, with the status quo and with the other possible solutions. Look for a proposal that has the best immediate consequences. Do not consider long-range goals and ideals.

3. Choose the best alternative through a voting process.

4. If a new problem appears, go through the entire procedure again.

Lindblom hoped that a series of incremental changes of this sort would lead to a favorable outcome and that, consequently, group policy would steadily, if slowly, improve. Lindblom called this process "muddling through."

Advantages

Incrementalism has some virtues as a decision-making procedure. These virtues, however, are exactly the opposite of what Lindblom believed they would be. Lindblom believed that his technique would be useful in the following situation: (1) the consequences of alternative courses of action are uncertain, (2) the current situation is unacceptable, and (3) the stakes are high. Lindblom was wrong, however. In this type of situation it is best that groups not use his incrementalism process. Instead, groups facing this situation must expend the effort necessary to make an optimal decision.

What type of situation, then, could reveal the virtues of Lindblom's process? His method is useful if (1) members know the consequences of alternative courses of action, (2) the current situation needs only slight adjustments, and (3) the stakes are low. In this type of situation, the incrementalism procedure is a useful way to save a group from the unnecessary detail inherent in optimizing procedure.

In Chapter 12, we discussed the theory that Janis and Mann (1977) proposed regarding how levels of arousal affect decision making. Their theory is useful for a group trying to decide whether or not to use Lindblom's method. As you recall, Janis and Mann proposed a series of questions within their decision-making process. The first two questions were, "Is the present course of action sufficient?" and "Is the most available alternative a sufficient improvement?" These two questions are identical to the incrementalist strategy. If a group answers "yes" to either question, Lindblom's model is adequate for the group. If, however, the answer to both questions is "no," the group should move on to a more optimizing procedure.

In addition, the incrementalism procedure has another virtue. It uses a voting strategy, which is often a good idea; however, a group must be careful when it uses a vote to solve problems. It is true that the optimizing method, calling for a consensus on criteria, is problematic. If serious differences in values exist among group members, reaching a consensus is difficult. Thus, voting is often the only reasonable strategy to resolve group conflicts. There are disadvantages to voting, however. The final vote may ignore the needs of minority groups, and the group cannot claim that it reached its decision using objective criteria.

Thus, a group may need to perform an incremental strategy in response to inherent group conflict. If it does, however, the group needs to be aware of the potential problems when it votes. The group should make concessions to the minority in its decision. It should also ensure that all interested parties are involved in the decision-making process.

Disadvantages

The incrementalist procedure may alleviate the problems we have outlined above in regard to optimizing; however, Lindblom's method is badly flawed. Lindblom is correct that optimization is problematic; however, he tries to alleviate its difficulties by wishing them away. For instance, it is true that the members need not worry about a lack of information if they limit their alternatives to those that differ only slightly from the status quo. Is this an adequate solution? It is also true that groups do not have to worry about differences in underlying values if a"winner-takes-all" vote decides the issue. Again, is this a good way to alleviate the problem?

People do not invest much time and effort, nor do they tax their cognitive abilities, if they use Lindblom's incrementalist procedure; however, they also do not have the opportunity to come up with fundamental improvements in current policy. As you can see, Lindblom's procedure may address the problems of optimizing, but it does so in a way that limits decision makers.

Further, Lindblom's procedure appears to be dangerously conservative, despite his claims that it is not. The incrementalist process is useless when a group needs to make a major change in policy. The method also allows voting majorities to maintain the status quo, no matter how reasonable the arguments of minorities. In addition, the model is aimless. Instead of moving toward goals, it moves away from problems. Lindblom sees this as a virtue. We do not see it that way. With no goal in mind, a group can "muddle" its way to disaster. Similarly, a group could make a series of incremental changes in the right direction but still be unable to stop disaster from overtaking it.

RESEARCH ON FORMAL PROCEDURES

Thus far in this chapter we have examined why scientists believe that groups ought to make better decisions when they use formal procedures than when they use a free discussion format. We have described some formal procedures and also discussed how each one's design should fit certain situations and not others.

Except for our examination of brainstorming, however, we have not talked about much of the research on this topic. Many studies have tested the claims that scientists make about formal procedures. For the remainder of this chapter we will present an analysis of this research.

Point for Researchers to Keep in Mind

Before our analysis, however, we must remind our readers of an important point we made at the beginning of this chapter. Formal procedures are in some sense "unnatural." As a result, it can be difficult for groups to follow them. This point has two important implications.

Training and Practice Important
First, people should not expect groups to follow formal procedures correctly without proper training and practice. Members need to get adequate instruction in the procedure and have the opportunity to practice it. Researchers testing the value of formal procedures need to keep this in mind. Their research should be with groups that have sufficient instruction and practice. Groups could follow a procedure poorly because they are not adequately prepared. If this happens, the study will not give the value of the procedure a fair test.

Motivation Important
Second, even if group members have sufficient training and practice, they still may not follow the procedure well if they do not care about the decision. Going through an "unnatural" discussion can be difficult if the topic does not seem important. A procedure will not help a group make a good decision if its members merely go through the motions of doing it. Again, the value of formal procedures will not get a fair test in this situation.

Hence, motivation is important. Members will do best when they are making a decision that matters to them. They are more likely to apply themselves to their task and more likely to follow a formal procedure well than they would otherwise. When researchers want to study the value of formal procedures, they need to be aware of this. They should study groups in which members make decisions that affect themselves. Only then can researchers assume that group members are motivated to try to follow procedures well.

Thus, researchers who evaluate discussion procedures should keep in mind that they need to study group members who are adequately prepared and motivated.

In the following pages we will examine research in the area of discussion procedures. To do so, we will ask five questions. As we come to each question, we will discuss the scientists' attempts to answer it. Hence, we will examine each question in turn.

Question 1--Do Discussion Procedures Help Groups Make Better Decisions?
On first glance, it appears that a researcher would have no trouble designing a study to answer this question. A scientist should simply train some groups in a discussion procedure and then give them a decision to make that matters to them. He or she then should form comparable groups and have them use free discussion. Finally, the scientist should determine whether the groups that used a procedure made better decisions than the other groups. Things are not that easy, however. Let us first look at some studies that have attempted to answer this research question. We shall then examine some problems with the studies.

Evidence That Formal Procedures Are Helpful
First, some evidence indicates that groups that follow formal procedures make better decisions than free discussion groups. We shall present this evidence as it appeared from the studies and afterward discuss drawbacks to the findings.

Procedures help accuracy
For example, remember our discussion of the "Lost on the Moon" problem-solving task? We described it in Chapter 2. In this task, group members look at items that can help a stranded crew get back to its spaceship, and they rank the items in order of importance. In our earlier discussion, we said that group rankings for this task tended to be less accurate than the rankings of the most accurate members. Evidence indicates, however, that procedures can perhaps help groups with these kinds of tasks.

In several studies, groups have followed a formal procedure for "Lost on the Moon" and similar "survival" tasks. The groups used the Hall and Watson consensus guidelines. These groups made more accurate rankings than free discussion groups. In addition, they often made rankings that were as accurate as their most accurate member. In other words, Hall and Watson's rules appear to help groups take advantage of their most competent member's knowledge. Apparently, a procedure can enhance the accuracy of a group's solution to a problem.

Procedures help decision quality
Other studies have examined how procedures affect the quality of a group's decision. These studies have shown that groups can improve their decision quality by using a formal procedure. For example, Larson (1969) looked at groups that used three procedures, including Reflective Thinking, to approach decision-making. Larson found that decision quality was higher in these groups than in free discussion groups.

Researchers have found other advantages as far as formal procedures and decision-making tasks are concerned. Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1975) compared groups using NGT with free discussion groups. When they compared them with other groups, the researchers found that groups that use NGT:

1. tend to generate more nonoverlapping ideas (this advantage increases as the size of the groups becomes larger);

2. feel more free to participate, leading to less conformity among group members;

3. are better able to "depersonalize" the discussion and face any conflict; and

4. are less cohesive but more satisfied with task accomplishments.

Procedures help member satisfaction
At the beginning of the chapter, we described Poole's eight reasons for believing that formal procedures are better for group decision making than free discussion. Some of these reasons are relevant to group member satisfaction. For example, formal procedures are thought to help group members feel that their discussion is organized, that they can evaluate the quality of their decision making, and that they are in control of their destiny. Thus it follows that the adoption of formal procedures should increase group member satisfaction. We have already mentioned one study with findings that support this notion (Kramer et al., 1997), and there are several others (for example, Green & Taber, 1980).

Procedures help commitment levels
Finally, evidence also indicates that formal procedures enhance the commitment that members feel toward their decision. White, Dittrich, and Lang (1980) looked at groups of nurse administrators who made decisions about how to perform job-related tasks. Some groups used either NGT or a procedure that was similar to Reflective Thinking. Others used free discussion. When compared with the others, the nurses who used the procedures in their groups were more likely to implement their decisions in their work. This finding implies that formal procedure groups are more committed to their decisions than free discussion groups are.

Problems with the Studies
Lack of training and motivation. Unfortunately, as we have stated, there are several problems with these studies. For one thing, in all studies we mentioned, the participants lacked preparation. They received little instruction and no practice. Also, the question of motivation presents a problem. The White, Dittrich, and Lang (1980) study was the only one in which the decision affected the participants. Thus, we can question the validity of all the studies. Of course, the results were in favor of the formal procedures. Given this, one can imagine that the participants followed the procedures reasonably well.

Lack of explanations for findings. Another problem with these studies is more subtle than those we have mentioned. It is not at all clear why the studies got the results they did. Why did formal procedures result in more accurate rankings and higher quality decisions than the free discussions did?

Possible Explanations for Evidence
Improved group discussion. One possible explanation is that the procedures led group members to have a more structured and well-reasoned discussion than they otherwise would have. This, in turn, produced an improved performance. This explanation focuses on group process. It is an example of the "input-process-output" model of group discussion that we examined in Chapters 1 and 8. The procedures affected group process and thereby helped group output.

None of the researchers that we have discussed, however, looked at group process. Instead, they linked group input directly with group output. The input consisted of the presence or absence of a procedure, and the output was the group's task performance. Therefore, there is no evidence from these studies that the groups that used formal procedures performed their discussions any more skillfully than the free discussion groups did.

Improved individual performances. Further, it is easy to argue that group process is not actually a factor. Did group discussion actually lead to the improved performances of groups that used procedures? For a possible answer, we can turn to ideas from Hewes. As you can recall, in Chapter 8 we discussed Hewes's (1986) arguments concerning the "input-process-output" model. One of his arguments was that group input itself may affect how group members perform. Differences in the input may lead to variations in the way that individual members perform. Individual performances, in turn, may account for the different group output. All this would mean that group process does not matter. Instead, group input is the key to what happens.

How does Hewes's argument relate to formal procedures? The procedures constitute group input. When group members adopt a procedure, they may improve their thinking. This, in turn, means that the group will make a better decision. Evidence indicates that certain ways of thinking can help decision quality. The ability to think reflectively appears to improve the quality of decisions (Sharp & Milliken, 1964). Procedures such as Reflective Thinking may help group members think more reflectively on their own. If so, these procedures would improve decision quality by themselves, as an input variable. Their effect would be independent of the discussion process.

Investigation of Possible Explanations
Hence, there are two explanations of how formal procedures affect group output: (1) group discussion is important, (2) group discussion is not important. Which is correct? To help them choose, scientists must perform complete "input-process-output" studies.

Formal procedures and critical functions. As you can recall from Chapter 8, Hirokawa (1985) focused on what he called "critical" discussion functions. His research led him to conclude that if groups want to make decisions successfully, they must:

1. Discuss the problem thoroughly.

2. Examine the criteria for an acceptable solution.

3. Propose a set of realistic alternative solutions.

4. Assess the positive aspects of each proposal.

5. Assess the negative aspects of each proposal.

As you can see, Hirokawa's list looks very much like the Reflective Thinking procedure. Reflective Thinking includes all the critical functions as part of its methodology. Thus, it would make sense for Hirokawa to examine how procedures such as Reflective Thinking relate to his critical functions. Hirokawa wanted to know whether procedures such as Reflective Thinking change group discussion and actually cause groups to perform more critical functions than free discussion groups do.

Findings of study. Hirokawa's findings suggest that the procedures do not help groups perform critical functions. He examined free discussion groups, Reflective Thinking groups, and groups that followed two other formal procedures. He looked at the number of critical functions that the groups performed and at the quality of the decisions they made. He found no difference among the groups. All groups performed similar amounts of critical functions and made decisions of a similar quality.

This finding stands in contrast to the research we discussed earlier. In those other studies, scientists found that formal procedures lead to relatively higher quality decisions.

What did Hirokawa's study show? Why did the procedures not help his groups perform better? The answer is not clear. If we examine Hirokawa's research methodology, we can find faults. His groups received little instruction and no practice. They also made decisions that did not affect them. However, this was also true for most of the studies we reviewed earlier. Hence, these faults cannot account for Hirokawa's research findings being different from the other studies.

Conclusions
Thus, research into this question is not conclusive. Most studies show that groups that follow procedures perform better than free discussion groups. We do not know, however, why this should be so. For our purposes, let us assume for the time being that group discussion does affect group performance. This allows us to ask further questions about formal discussion procedures.

Question 2--Does the Order of Steps in Formal Procedures Matter?

Comfort Level in Groups
As we discussed earlier, formal procedures such as NGT and Reflective Thinking are linear models. As such, they consist of sequential steps. Advocates of the procedures insist that groups always perform these steps in the proper order. As we saw in Chapter 8, however, free discussion may actually be closer to a "reach-testing" process than to a linear one. This may mean that people are most comfortable when they use a "reach-testing" discussion method. The order of steps could affect the comfort level of group members.

The issue of comfort has different aspects. As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, one strength of formal procedures may actually be that they cause discomfort among group members. A formal procedure is an unnatural process and therefore may be uncomfortable to follow. This can perhaps shake up members in a positive way and get them to reexamine their normal ways of doing things.

It is nevertheless still useful to know how the order of procedural steps affects members. Do members do better following a linear method or a "reach-testing" method? Is their level of comfort part of the equation?

Hirokawa Study
A study by Hirokawa (1983) relates to this issue. In his experiment, Hirokawa used a coding scheme to analyze task-oriented discussion of free-discussion decision-making groups. His scheme categorized decision-making functions, with each category representing a group action. The coding scheme was as follows:

Category 1 = Analyze the problem

Category 2 = Establish evaluation criteria

Category 3 = Generate alternative solutions

Category 4 = Evaluate alternative solutions

Category 5 = Establish operating procedures

Hirokawa first analyzed his test groups using the scheme above. He then divided the data into phases to discern when groups performed each function. With some exceptions, the results generally showed consistent differences among the decision processes of the groups. Groups that made decisions that Hirokawa judged "good" followed certain processes; groups that made "bad" decisions followed other processes. When Hirokawa divided the group discussions into three stages, he discovered the findings shown in Table 13.5.

As you can see, the free discussion of "good" decision groups more closely approximated the Reflective Thinking procedure. In particular, the "good" groups analyzed the problem early in the discussion and evaluated the possible solutions later. In contrast, the "bad" decision groups first worked on possible solutions and then went "backward" to establish an operating procedure and analyze the problem. Finally, they returned to possible solutions.

Despite these different results, the "good" and "bad" decision groups had many similarities. Both kinds of groups generated and evaluated solutions pretty much throughout their discussions. Thus, the difference in process between the high- and low-quality groups was not very large. Groups may not have to follow a linear process strictly in order to make high-quality decisions.

Alternative Version of Reflective Thinking
One can imagine a version of Reflective Thinking that is not completely linear. Group members first analyze the problem and determine criteria. They then "reach-test" through proposal sequences. Each sequence follows a pattern. Immediately after the members propose a solution, they evaluate it against the criteria and give it a tentative evaluation.

Scientists would have to use research to determine whether this alternative method leads to the same kind of decision quality that the standard version of Reflective Thinking does. If so, the method might be preferable to the standard procedure because it more closely resembles free discussion. Group members may find it easier and more enjoyable to use than the standard method. Hence, they might be more willing to use it.

Brilhart and Jochem (1964) conducted research that lends some support to the idea that an alternative method might work well. In their study, groups used formal procedures to make decisions. Each procedure was similar to Reflective Thinking, yet not all were linear methods. The three kinds of procedures were as follows:

1. Problem-criteria-proposals-evaluation-decision

2. Problem-proposals-criteria-evaluation-decision

3. Problem-proposal/evaluation-decision

As you can see, the first method was a standard Reflective Thinking procedure, and the second was different but still a linear method. The third, however, appeared to allow groups to "reach-test."

The results showed that the third method led to fewer total proposals and fewer good ones than the other two. When the researchers looked at decision quality, however, they found no difference among the procedures. This suggests that, in the end, the order of stages in a procedure did not matter. A group did not need to follow a strictly linear pattern to do well. Further, the participants reported that the standard Reflective Thinking was the least satisfying procedure.

Question 3--Do Procedures Differ in Overall Effectiveness?

Some procedures could lead to better group performance than others. In a review of relevant studies, we found some evidence of such differences (Pavitt, 1993).

The General Procedures

The studies show that the procedure of "dialectical inquiry" may lead to higher quality decisions than the method of "devil's advocacy." In addition, both procedures seem to help groups come to higher quality decisions than Hall and Watson's consensus rules do, although they take longer to reach these decisions.

On the other hand, Hall and Watson's rules fare better when groups perform problem-solving survival games, such as "Lost on the Moon." Research shows that groups that use the consensus rules seem to come to more accurate answers than groups that use NGT although they do so slower.

The Detailed Procedures

Studies that have compared Reflective Thinking and NGT have not found any differences. The procedures appear equally effective.

One such study was by White, Dittrich, and Lang (1980). We discussed it earlier. It measured the number of times that nurses attempted to implement their group's decisions. The researchers found that, as far as this variable was concerned, there was no difference between NGT and the procedure that was similar to Reflective Thinking.

Jarboe Study
A second study comparing NGT and Reflective Thinking was performed by Jarboe (1988). Earlier, we stated that it was important to train participants adequately and to motivate them to follow the procedures well. From studies to date, Jarboe's is the only one we have good reason to believe included adequate training and motivation. The participants received a lecture and handout on the procedure. They then watched a videotaped presentation of a group using the method, and finally they practiced it under supervision.

Jarboe then had the groups make decisions about one of two issues, using either Reflective Thinking or NGT. Each issue was presented in a manner that made it either relatively simple or relatively complex. The participants were motivated to follow the procedure they were assigned, because their performances affected their class grades.

Jarboe found that NGT led to a greater number of proposals than did Reflective Thinking; however, she also found that the techniques did not differ in other ways. She judged that the methods produced proposals that were similar in uniqueness and quality. Further, the two procedures did not differ in regard to member satisfaction. No matter which method they used, members were equally satisfied regarding their group's solution, the technique their group used, and their group experience in general. We need more research in this area, however, before we can make any general claims about how NGT and Reflective Thinking compare.

Incidentally, Jarboe did more in this study than compare NGT with Reflective Thinking. In fact, this study was one of the first to respond to Hewes's challenge, as discussed in Chapter 8. Hewes demanded that researchers show that communication has an effect on output variables over and above the effect of input variables. Jarboe measured various output variables, such as group productivity and member satisfaction. She also performed content analyses of group process, using a coding scheme similar to Bales's. As described above, her input variables included discussion procedure and complexity of the issue. Jarboe found that she could most accurately predict output variables if she used the input and process variables

together. Her predictions were not so successful if she used either set alone. This can be seen as evidence that process had an impact on output over and above input.

However, critics can propose alternative explanations for Jarboe's findings. Her control of the groups could have influenced individual decision-making performances. In turn, individual performances would directly affect task output and member satisfaction. Thus, perhaps group process was not shown to be the deciding factor.

Question 4--Do Procedures Differ in Effectiveness in Different Situations?

Earlier, we presented the idea that the design of procedures could lead to differences in effectiveness in a given situation. We have, however, little research on this issue. The research that does exist has focused on NGT. We can summarize these findings to show the research in this area.

NGT and Research Findings

As we discussed earlier, it appears that NGT leads to better decision-making performances than free discussion does. Hence, apparently NGT can help with tasks that do not have objectively correct answers.

Whether NGT improves the performance of groups facing tasks that have objectively correct answers is not clear. For example, findings in studies that have looked at the accuracy of group rankings on "survival" tasks have differed. Some found that NGT leads to greater accuracy than free discussion, others found no difference in accuracy, and still others found that accuracy was greater in free discussion groups. Further, as we mentioned in our previous section, research has found that groups that follow Hall and Watson's consensus rules to work on "survival" tasks have more accurate rankings than groups that use NGT.

Thus, NGT might not be a good procedure for groups to use when they work on problem-solving tasks.

Possible Reasons for NGT Findings
We have good reason to argue that these findings make sense. It is understandable that NGT would be more beneficial in a decision-making situation than in a survival game situation.

Perhaps the greatest strength of NGT is the method it outlines for proposal making. Group members silently generate proposals and then list them in round-robin fashion. This procedure is important for decision-making tasks. Proposal generation is particularly crucial for decisions. Therefore, NGT may help groups improve the quality of their decisions.

In a survival game, however, proposal generation is unimportant. In a sense, the game has already supplied the "proposals," in the form of the list of items that the members must rank. Thus, the group needs only to discuss and evaluate them. For this reason, NGT may not be as helpful with this kind of task as it is with decision-making tasks.

Other Procedures
We can look at NGT research and hypothesize about other procedures. More generally, the design of procedures may suit some types of decision tasks and not others. Unfortunately, with the exception of NGT, scientists have done little research concerning when groups should and should not use particular procedures. For example, there are no studies that can give us insights into when Reflective Thinking is and is not helpful.

Question 5--Do Different People React Differently to the Use of Discussion Procedures?

We have discussed how a procedure may help in some circumstances and not in others. Likewise, a procedure could be good for some people and not for others. Personality traits may affect how people respond to formal discussion procedures.

Preference for Procedural Order

One trait that is possibly relevant is "preference for procedural order," or "PPO." PPO is an inherent desire to make decisions in a structured manner rather than in an unstructured manner. Hirokawa, Ice, and Cook (1988) found that groups of people who are high in PPO make higher quality decisions when they use the Reflective Thinking procedure rather than when they use free discussion. In contrast, groups consisting of members low in PPO make higher quality decisions using free discussion rather than when they use the Reflective Thinking procedure.

This suggests that people who like to make decisions in a structured manner should use formal procedures. On the other hand, people who do not like using a structured manner to make decisions should not use a formal procedure.

Communication Apprehension
A second trait that is possibly relevant is "communication apprehension," or "CA." CA is an inherent fear of communicating in situations in which others will evaluate one's performance as a communicator.

As you can recall, this issue arose when we discussed brainstorming. It is one reason that brainstorming may not help groups generate proposals as well as methods in which people generate ideas individually. Individual idea generation includes methods such as writing proposals on lists individually. In brainstorming, however, members express their ideas to the group. Despite the rules of brainstorming, some people may still be anxious that other members of their group will evaluate them negatively if their proposals seem "off-the-wall." It follows that people high in CA may be particularly sensitive in a brainstorming situation. They may be likely to withhold proposals because they are afraid of negative evaluations.

Thus, high CA people gain a greater advantage from procedures that use individual proposal generation than do people who are low in CA (Jablin, 1981).

Applications of Findings
These findings imply that formal procedures may not be for everyone. Additionally, some procedures are effective for certain types of people and not effective for others. Perhaps groups ought to use procedures only when members prefer the guidance they can offer.

We have discussed studies that have found no differences in how various procedures affect groups. We have also discussed studies that show no difference between groups that used procedures and those that used free discussion. What if these findings have more to do with the people in the groups than with the procedures? The findings could mask differences that arose due to different types of people. In other words, perhaps some types of people make better decisions when they use Reflective Thinking than when they use NGT. Others may make higher quality decisions when they use NGT rather than Reflective Thinking. Finally, some group members may reach better decisions with free discussion than with either formal procedure.

Conclusion

Existing research on formal discussion procedures appears problematical. It does not allow us to reach many conclusions about how procedures affect decision quality and accuracy in groups. Research has indeed raised more questions than answers.

Nevertheless, even without research support, scientists can argue in favor of discussion procedures. Overall, studies have shown that groups that use procedures tend to be more satisfied with their decisions than free discussion groups are. As a consequence, such groups are probably also more committed to their decisions than free discussion groups are.

Further, groups that use discussion procedures imply that they are committed to democratic decision making. For example, NGT forces all members to participate equally, regardless of power and status. Similarly, Reflective Thinking gives an equal opportunity to all proposals, no matter who made them. Thus, if groups correctly follow formal discussion agendas, the procedures can be a force for democracy in decision making. This alone may warrant their use in circumstances in which people value democracy.

GROUP DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Computer Programs to Direct Groups

In Chapter 9, we discussed computer conferencing. As we stated, computer conferencing has become steadily more popular in recent years for decision-making groups. In that earlier discussion, we focused on how people can use computers as a medium. We discussed how computers can allow people in distant locations to form groups and make decisions. The distance does not matter.

In some organizational groups, however, computers are not merely a medium. In these groups, computers not only allow groups to make decisions, they also direct the groups' procedures. In other words, these groups do not follow the normal pattern of a group member leading the group through a formal procedure. Instead, a computer program leads the group. In this case, the program is called a group decision support system, or "GDSS."

Electronic Brainstorming

For example, researchers at the University of Arizona have deveolped a GDSS that they call "Group Systems." One program in the GDSS, "Electronic Brainstorming," guides groups through brainstorming sessions. When using "Electronic Brainstorming," group members simultaneously type their ideas into a database. As they type, the program randomly selects members' proposals and displays them on everyone's screen. Members can read these proposals while typing in their ideas, and thus piggyback on one another's proposals.

Potential Advantages

As we discussed earlier, one problem with group brainstorming is "production blocking." Due to the fact that group members must take turns talking, members often forget their ideas before they have the time to present them verbally to the group. One advantage of brainstorming with computers is that members can enter their ideas right when they think of them. They do not have to take turns. Computerized brainstorming groups have the potential, therefore, to be more productive than face-to-face brainstorming groups.

Research into Electronic Brainstorming

As we described above, face-to-face brainstorming leads to far fewer and lower quality proposals than the silent generation of ideas. Early research implied that this was also the case for "Electronic Brainstorming." Gallupe, Bastianutti, and Cooper (1991) asked students to brainstorm a list of results that would take place if everybody had an extra thumb on each hand. The students performed this task either alone or in four-member groups. In addition, the students either worked face-to-face or used "Electronic Brainstorming," whether or not they were alone.

Researchers compared the results of the groups and the individuals by adding the results of four individuals to create same-sized aggregates. When students worked alone using "Electronic Brainstorming," no other proposals displayed on their screens. Hence, they could not piggyback on ideas. For that reason, the researchers expected that the groups that used "Electronic Brainstorming" would generate more proposals than the aggregates of four individuals brainstorming through computers. This did not happen. The use of computers did lead to more proposals than the face-to-face situations, but the groups that used computers did not produce more proposals than the same-sized aggregates. Instead, four students brainstorming alone through computers were as productive as the groups.

Valacich, Dennis, and Connolly (1994) were not convinced by these findings. As discussed earlier, the reason why nominal groups are more productive than real groups in brainstorming is because of production blocking; members are unable to immediately voice their ideas. In "Electronic Brainstorming group members can type their ideas as soon as they think of them. As a consequence, production blocking should not be a problem.

Valacich et al. replicated Gallupe et al.'s study, but in this case using real brainstorming groups and aggregates as large as 18. As in earlier research, they found that both the number and quality of proposals increased as the size of aggregates went up. Unlike earlier research, the number of quality of proposals also increased as the size of real brainstorming groups went up. Further, the rate of increase was faster in the real groups than in the aggregates. As a consequence, small-sized aggregates performed better than small-sized groups, but large-sized groups performed better than large-sized aggregates. In Valacich et al.'s data, real groups became more productive than same-sized aggregates when their size reached about 12 members. Of course, it is difficult to say whether the same effect will work in other circumstances. Nonetheless, this is the first situation in which brainstorming has been found to work better than individual idea generation.

Software Aided Meeting Management

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have written another GDSS for groups called "Software Aided Meeting Management," or "SAMM." SAMM includes a discussion procedure that is based on Reflective Thinking.

Poole, DeSanctis, Holmes, and their associates have performed a number of studies comparing face-to-face interactions and SAMM. They have compared the process and output of various groups with one another. Some groups used SAMM with computers, others followed SAMM's procedure face-to-face, and still others used face-to-face free discussion.

The results of this research has been very complex, but a few results are worth noting. Scientists found that group members who use SAMM tend to have more conflict and attempt to influence one another more than members who perform the same procedure face-to-face (Poole, Holmes, & DeSanctis, 1991; Zigurs, Poole, & DeSanctis, 1988). This finding is consistent with what we reported in Chapter 9, that findings have been similar for groups that use computer conferencing. The process of groups using SAMM face-to-face tends to more closely approximate the "linear phase model" (see Chapter 8) than the free-discussion or computerized SAMM groups, which leads to greater group consensus and member satisfaction (Poole & Holmes, 1995). One reason for this finding is that computerized groups seemed to have trouble using SAMM. As a consequence, they spent more time trying to figure out how the technology works, which takes attention away from their task (Poole, Holmes, Watson, & DeSanctis, 1993).

It would be interesting if the Minnesota researchers would expand their study and not focus only on how face-to-face groups compare with SAMM. Instead, they could compare computerized SAMM groups with groups that use computer conferencing to perform free discussion. This would help them determine the extent to which their results are due to the specific use of the SAMM GDSS as opposed to the use of computer technology in general.

SUMMARY

Researchers have devised many formal procedures for groups to use when they conduct their discussions. For many reasons, scientists believe that formal procedures are advantageous and can improve the decision-making performance of groups. These advantages, however, are often the very reasons that groups do not adopt the procedures. For the procedures to work effectively, group members must receive the proper training and be motivated to follow them.

Some formal procedures are general, and consist only of guidelines. For example, Hall and Watson proposed a set of six consensus rules that are designed to help a group reach a mutually satisfying consensus. "Devil's advocacy" and "dialectical inquiry" are two other general methods. Their purpose is to help groups resist premature decisions by forcing group members to examine their basic assumptions.

Other formal procedures are extremely detailed. Their design should affect how suitable they are in different circumstances.

Reflective Thinking is a method that has much of the give and take of free discussion. Theorists designed Reflective Thinking to help cohesive groups handle major decisions. These cohesive groups should have members who can optimize and who feel relatively comfortable with one another. The Nominal Group Technique is also used for major decisions; however, it limits conversation among group members. As a result, it is best for groups that are not particularly cohesive. It does not truly assume that group members are able to optimize.

Brainstorming is a technique groups can use to generate ideas. When it is inserted into a process such as the Nominal Group Technique, it should improve cohesiveness and subsequent decision making. It does so, however, at the expense of some productivity.

Incrementalism is a satisficing procedure that is good for making routine decisions.

Researchers have performed some studies to test the consequences of using formal procedures. Formal procedures appear to help groups make better decisions than they otherwise would. What causes this improvement, however, is not clear. It could come about because of more structured and well-reasoned discussions or because of better individual decision making on the part of each group member.

Advocates of formal procedures insist that groups perform the steps in order; however, scientists are not sure whether the order really matters. Also not clear is whether procedures differ in terms of how effective they are, although different methods are likely better in different situations. Personal traits appear to affect how people like procedures. Some people perform better when they follow formal procedures than when they engage in free discussion, while other people do not.

Recently, researchers have written computer programs to guide people through formal procedures. These programs allow groups to use formal procedures while they make decisions through computer conferencing. Research suggests that groups that use computerized procedures may have more conflict and find it more difficult to make decisions than groups that use procedures in face-to-face meetings.

In this chapter, we described only a small sample of the formal procedures that are available. Readers can find more complete reviews of this topic in Scheidel and Crowell (1979) and Nutt (1984).

Which of the following is not one of the step in facilitating group decision making?

What is the first step in facilitating group decision making?

Which of the following is not one of the tips for alleviating communication problems of virtual team?

During which stage of team development is the team fully functional in accomplishing project goals?