A. Power

   Knowledge is Power. Knowledge is what sets the professional apart from the non-professional, and the competent from the incompetent.

   However, realize also that Position is Power. Those who have worked hard to achieve some particular position may be inclined to "force the perceived authority on others,” expecting others to "bow to their whims or commands.” We all naturally want to look good and feel good about how others perceive us. We are naturally gregarious creatures, and social acceptance is a major component driving our outward behaviors. When we assume some professional decision-making role, certainly the image which we publicly project becomes important to us, as well as to the organizations for whom we may serve. A problem surfaces, however, when we either don't recognize or stubbornly and foolishly appropriate a level of importance to that image too high up in our list of personal priorities. This is a problem of considerable importance when we assemble groups of humans. Some may know how to manage their new authority responsibly, but some others may not, and you may want to take the time to ascertain a certain level of "social sensitivity” among members of your group so as to avoid hurting anyone's esteem or at the very minimum to keep discussions on a sensible level.

   This potential problem can also surface when the group invites outside authorities/professionals/leaders to provide some input in their discussions. Sometimes the group itself finds itself incompetent at some particular task and the members may resort to seeking external professional advice:

When outsiders are invited to join the group it is best to treat them a regular members. Sometimes they are given too much power ('You are the expert. Tell us what to do.’); more often, too little ('We are the real decision makers. We’ll ask for your views when we want them.’). — Daniel D Wheeler and Irving Lester Janis, A Practical Guide for Making Decisions, 1980.

    B. Overview

   You must recognize the value of overview over any scenario under study. Overview is achieved when we are cognizant of all variables that may significantly alter the outcome to the situation apart from a way which we may immediately expect. So, the process of selecting members to occupy your decision-making group should be geared toward finding those persons who are the most competent at the particular task in question, because greater competence (i.e., more experience, knowledge and/or training) means greater overview, which in turn implies a smaller likelihood for oversight and, therefore, for potential error. And where overview is impossible to attain, because we may lack the resources to locate a competent (experienced, trained, informed) professional to navigate through the situation, we must resort to intense brainstorming so as to imagine possibilities that we may be overlooking.

III. Diversity

   Everybody wants a strong team! Members all getting along, no major quarrels ... all thinkin’ along the same "wavelength." Right?

   Wrong. Though the above may hold true in the workplace, where routine and procedure dominate all activity, it is far from desirable in the decision-making profession. Dissent, creativity and open-mindedness to new possibilities are the rule among decision-makers. Every assumption is exposed and challenged. Every idea is documented and recorded: shuffled, modified and fused with other ideas in an attempt to find some "better way" never before recognized. This is the "brain" of the organization. Old ideas can be reviewed and studied. New ones, added to the list. If your business lacks such a list of ideas, perhaps now is the time to start. You are not immortal, and all your personal memories of everything tried before will be lost once someone else assumes your position.

    A. Personality Bias

   We are gregarious creatures. But we also tend to prefer stability. We prefer friends who share our preferences, beliefs and viewpoints, while isolating ourselves from those whom we "don't quite understand."

   This behavior may be fine in the social world — among neighbors and families and social gatherings — but in the world of decision-making, this behavior can lead to some serious problems. Recognize that each of us is, to a certain extent, molded by the society of individuals surrounding us. Each society or communal group has its own accepted laws, social customs, religious beliefs and standards for social conduct. If you limit the selection of all your group members to one particular society or communal group, or to some particular personality profile, you are setting yourself up for the possibility that they will all overlook the same idea, notion or concept that a more diverse group may be able to quickly recognize.

No one ever looks at the world with pristine eyes. We see it edited by a definite set of customs, institutions and ways of thinking. Even in our philosophical probings we cannot go behind these stereotypes; our very concepts of the true and the false will still have reference to our particular traditional customs.
— Ruth Fulton Benedict, Patterns of Culture, 1934.

   As mentioned previously (page 6) sometimes groups fail to brainstorm away from some accepted mode of thinking, never to recognize some rare possibility or perhaps some common assumption held among all the participants. This is a serious potential problem, implicating severe consequential possibility, and not something to be taken lightly. The lesson is not to select a group of people who share somewhat similar interests, beliefs, personalities or backgrounds. The greater the variability between them, the better. You want some culture clash, some diversity of perspective and opinion. The greater the discord, the better, just so long as they all can still work together.

The research clearly demonstrates that groups comprised of an assortment of members with an assortment of interests are typically better at arriving at superior solutions to problems than are those groups that are composed of members who share the same interests.
— Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology: (1) R. L. Hoffman, "Homogeneity of Member Personality and Its Effect on Group Problem Solving," January 1959; and (2) R. L. Hoffman and N. R. F. Maier, "Quality and Acceptance of Problem Solutions by Members of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups," March 1961.

Poor decisions seem to be more likely when groups are at either end of the cohesiveness continuum. Those suffering from divisiveness do badly. [And then, at the opposite end, problems develop due to] the lack of cohesiveness of the group, that is, the absence of bonds of friendship, mutual respect, loyalty and esprit de corps.. . . .At either extreme, groups make decisions in which important alternatives are not considered and dangers are ignored. — Daniel D Wheeler and Irving Lester Janis, A Practical Guide for Making Decisions, 1980.

   Remember one of the primary reasons to begin with for opting with a group rather than an individual to solve your particular problem — idea generation. More people means more ideas, but not if they are all thinking in the same way! A variety of people leads to a variety of opinions, perspectives and analytical approaches. You want people who think differently from one another and can still work together!

    B. Conformity

   But don't stop there! The first hurdle is ascertaining some diversity in the personalities comprising your group, the second is ascertaining some diversity in their expressed opinions.

   We are naturally gregarious creatures, and social acceptance is a major component driving our outward behaviors. We all naturally want to look good and feel good about how others perceive us. Assembling a group will inevitably lapse into friendly chit chat as they all get to know one another. Such group cohesiveness isn't entirely a bad thing, unless it leads to some accepted social norm that no one wants to contradict so that "they can all remain friends.” Social taboo is certainly an enemy of creative thought, and you must make sure your group is aware of their own inhibitions so that they will speak freely — remaining Committed To Creativity and Open-mindedness — without fear of "hurting someone else’s feelings” or "violating someone’s standard of 'appropriate’ social conduct.”

  On the flip side of that notion, group members must be careful to avoid directly and indirectly imposing their own standards or beliefs on other members in the group. Doing so may result in a fellow member worrying over offending your standard before responding in some open-minded way which could then have led to some creative perspective or viewpoint that the group may be overlooking. This same line of reasoning extends to perceived status: Some particular members of the group may be perceived as, perhaps, more authoritative because of, say, numerous awards or years of experience, or a more extensive education, or .... Perceived status can hinder some members from openly expressing their viewpoints if they fear looking awkward or clumsy in the eyes of someone whom they dearly respect, and that behavior can be reinforced if the "significant other" displays daunting behavior or ridicules what he or she may perceive as "preposterous" ideas.

It’s important for group members to believe that the status hierarchy is equitable.
— Stephen P Robbins, Essentials of Organizational Behavior (6th ed.), 1999.

[ . . continues on next page > > ]

All opinions expressed in this web site, unless otherwise noted, are my own, Michael Gaspard. If you notice any errors or have any suggestions for improvement, please let me know by e-mailing webmaster@mdpme.com. Thank you!

This web page was last updated on Monday, February 2, 2004.
http://www.mdpme.com/reason13.htm

Terms of use &
Disclaimer/Privacy.