1. MIIC Nov 5, 2010 Prof. Morten Hansen
Managing Decision-Making Processes: Debate and Buy-in (Dec Making Exercise)
MIIC Nov 5, 2010
Prof. Morten Hansen

2. Three ways of designing conflict into the decision making process
Consensus:
Debate one solution
Strive for unanimity and harmony
Devil’s advocacy:
First sub-group develops a solution
Second sub-group criticizes the developed solution
First sub-groups modifies solution in response to criticism
Dialectical inquiry:
Second sub-group develops an alternative solution
The two sub-groups come together and develop a joint solution

3. Decision Process Comparison
CONSENSUS
Benefits
Downsides
Most managers use this method regularly and feel somewhat comfortable with it
Entails lower opportunity costs for participants: time, experience, training
Generates greater group harmony which may have a beneficial impact on implementation and other future group interaction
May be more appropriate for structured and/or routine tasks with sufficient data and clear alternatives
Does not uncover as many new alternatives, assumptions, and perspectives; less innovation
May lead to premature agreement or convergence on a single alternative
Sometimes leads to the suppression of dissent, especially as a majority opinion emerges. Risk of groupthink.
Generates lower levels of critical evaluation

4. Decision Process Comparison
DIALECTICAL INQUIRY / DEVIL’S ADVOCACY
Benefits
Downsides
Generates multiple alternatives; more innovative ideas
Explicitly outlines the supporting argument for a particular alternative (assumptions, facts)
Leads to considerable critical evaluation. Avoids early convergence on single alternative
Fosters a high level of individual understanding of the final decision
Does not force individuals to stand alone as dissenters/critical evaluators
May be quite appropriate for ill-structured tasks
May adversely impact group harmony, decision acceptance, and implementation
Entails opportunity costs for participants: time, experience, training
Subgroups may generate “safe” alternatives knowing that others will closely scrutinize their proposals
DI: synthesis of opposing alternatives may lead to mediocre compromise
DA: process may focus too much on destroying a particular alternative, rather than constructing other viable courses of action

5. Decision making process design leads to two types of conflict
Cognitive Conflict:
Generally task oriented and focused on judgmental differences about how to best achieve common objectives
Affective Conflict:
Tends to be emotional and focused on personal incompatibilities or disputes
Source: Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict”

6. Two types of conflict assessed in decision making exercise
Assessing the Level of Conflict:
Cognitive:
3. How many disagreements over different ideas about this decision were there?
4. How many differences about the content of this decision did the group have to work through?
Affective:
5. How much personal friction surfaced within the group during the decision making process?
6. How many personality clashes became evident during the decision making process?
Note: Question numbers refer to survey questions in exercise
Source: Amason, “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict”

7. D/I and D/A tend to create more conflict
Consensus
Dialectical inquiry
Devil’s
advocacy
Cognitive conflict
Low/moderate
High
Affective
conflict
Low
High/moderate

8. Data from exercise: more conflict in D/I and D/A
Average reported Level*
Consensus
D/A & D/I
Difference
Cognitive
Conflict
3. How many disagreements over different ideas about this decision were there?
2.7
4.7
+2.0
4. How many differences about the content of this decision did the group have to work through?
3.6
+1.1
Affective
5. How much personal friction surfaced within the group during the decision making process?
2.1
3.3
+1.2
6. How many personality clashes became evident during the decision making process?
2.2
3.1
+0.9
*) Scale: from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high)
Source: MIIC exercise Nov 2010

9. Cognitive conflict associated with more critical analysis
Q3 vs. Q7: cognitive conflict and critical evaluation of initial assumptions
+0.26
Q3 vs. q8: cognitive conflict and uncovering of valid assumptions, recommendations
+0.38

10. However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group
Q6 vs. Q11: personality clashes vs. willingness to implement decision
-0.02
Q6 vs. Q9: personality clashes vs. enjoying working with this group
-0.22

11. Problem is, cognitive and affective conflicts tend to go hand-in-hand
Q3 vs. Q5: disagreements over ideas vs. personal friction
+0.51
Q3 vs. Q6: disagreements over ideas vs. personality clashes
+0.63

12. Use DI or DA to stimulate debate
Devil’s
advocacy +
Stimulate conflict
and debate +
Dialectical
inquiry

13. Benefit from cognitive conflict
0.26/0.38
Devil’s
advocacy +
Cognitive
conflict +
Debate alternatives,
Deep analysis,
New ideas +
Better decisions +
Stimulate conflict
and debate +
Dialectical
inquiry
Note: numbers are correlations from
MIIC data Nov 2010

14. … but also increases affective conflict
0.28/0.35
Devil’s
advocacy +
Cognitive
conflict +
Debate alternatives,
Deep analysis,
New ideas +
Better decisions +
Stimulate conflict
and debate
0.51 to 0.63 +
Affective
Conflict +
Dialectical
inquiry
Note: numbers are correlations from
MIIC data Nov 2010

15. Sum: Key is to increase cognitive and decrease affective conflicts
0.28/0.35
Devil’s
advocacy +
Cognitive
conflict +
Debate alternatives,
Deep analysis,
New ideas +
Better decisions +
Stimulate conflict
and debate
0.48 to 0.59 +
Affective
Conflict
Personal animosity,
Less group harmony,
Poor decision
acceptance
Poor
implementation + + +
Dialectical
inquiry
-0.02 to -0.22
(-0.47 to -0.62)
Key is to break this path
Note: numbers are correlations from
MIIC data Nov 2010

16. Additional data from another student group, INSEAD MBAs (n=110)
This is a larger group so more validity.
The conclusions are very similar

17. Data from exercise today: more conflict in D/I and D/A
Average reported Level*
Consensus
Dial. Inq.
Dev. Adv.
3. How many disagreements over different ideas about this decision were there?
2.7
3.3
3.5
4. How many differences about the content of this decision did the group have to work through?
2.8
3.4
5. How much personal friction surfaced within the group during the decision making process?
1.6
1.9
2.2
6. How many personality clashes became evident during the decision making process?
*) Scale: from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high)

18. Cognitive conflict in D/A and D/I associated with critical evaluation
Evaluating assumptions
New recommendations/assumptions

19. However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group
Q6 vs. Q11: personality clashes vs. willingness to implement decision
-0.17
Q5 vs. Q 11: personal friction vs. willingness to implement decision
-0.26
Q6 vs. Q9: personality clashes vs. enjoying working with this group
-0.44
Q5 vs. Q9: personal friction vs. enjoying working with this group
-0.29

20. Problem is, affective and cognitive conflict correlated

21. Best spot: high cognitive, low affective