1. Decision Making Magnificent Seven

2. Decision making is like solving a puzzle It is not complete unless you have all pieces

3. Consensus Most group decisions in America are made by reaching consensus Most group decisions in America are made by reaching consensus Decision is better than those reached alone Decision is better than those reached alone People feel good and closer to team members People feel good and closer to team members People feel invested in decision People feel invested in decision Greater acceptance of group decision Greater acceptance of group decision

5. Consensus negatives Groupthink: Why is it dangerous? Groupthink: Why is it dangerous? Little critical testing, analyzing, and evaluating of ideasLittle critical testing, analyzing, and evaluating of ideas Research shows decision is of lower qualityResearch shows decision is of lower quality Quiet members may feel disenfranchisedQuiet members may feel disenfranchised

6. Benchmarks of good decision-making process Clear objectives Clear objectives BATNA Data collection & analysis Evaluation Implementation Framing and Reference Points 100% From: “Advances in Decision Analysis”, W. Edwards, R. Miles, and D. von Winterfeldt, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

8. Devil’s Advocacy & Dialectical Inquiry Devil’s Advocacy Devil’s Advocacy One person proposes a plan, one person takes role of adverse criticOne person proposes a plan, one person takes role of adverse critic

9. Dialectical Inquiry Dialectical Inquiry Dialectical Inquiry Two groups: proposal and counter- proposalTwo groups: proposal and counter- proposal

10. Benefits of DA/DI More rigorous More rigorous Higher quality decision Higher quality decision Questions underlying assumptions Questions underlying assumptions Can be speedier than consensus Can be speedier than consensus

11. Negatives of DA/DI Needs to be learned Needs to be learned Can be hard to implement when buy- in tends to be lower Can be hard to implement when buy- in tends to be lower Can increase conflict Can increase conflict

12. Healthy environment for decision making High cognitive dissonance High cognitive dissonance Not being afraid to disagree on the contentNot being afraid to disagree on the content Low affective dissonance Low affective dissonance Find ways to reduce personal conflictFind ways to reduce personal conflict

13. Institution Level: Nature of the decision

15. If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about. Alfred P. Sloan

16. Magnificent Seven team Magnificent Seven team Susan Borges Susan Borges Kristen Deren Kristen Deren Jennifer Gilmore Jennifer Gilmore Jim Jepsen Jim Jepsen Nina Joshi Nina Joshi Michael Soulios Michael Soulios Mariya Stoeva Mariya Stoeva

17. References Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The Effects of Top Management Team Size and interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict. Journal of Management, 495-516. Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The Effects of Top Management Team Size and interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict. Journal of Management, 495-516. Berniker, E., & McNabb, D. E. (2006). Dialectical Inquiry: A Structured Qualitative Research Method. The Qualitative Report, 643-664. Berniker, E., & McNabb, D. E. (2006). Dialectical Inquiry: A Structured Qualitative Research Method. The Qualitative Report, 643-664. Dialectical Approaches. (2006, April 16). Retrieved May 03, 2009, from Creativity & Innovation: Mycoted Science & Technology: www.mycoted.com/Dialectical_Approaches Dialectical Approaches. (2006, April 16). Retrieved May 03, 2009, from Creativity & Innovation: Mycoted Science & Technology: www.mycoted.com/Dialectical_Approacheswww.mycoted.com/Dialectical_Approaches Frederic, A., & Humphreys, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies. Idea Group, Inc. Frederic, A., & Humphreys, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies. Idea Group, Inc. Groupthink. (2009, September 06). Retrieved May 03, 2009, from University of Twente: Enschede - The Netherlands: http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communicati on/groupthink.doc/ Groupthink. (2009, September 06). Retrieved May 03, 2009, from University of Twente: Enschede - The Netherlands: http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communicati on/groupthink.doc/ http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communicati on/groupthink.doc/ http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communicati on/groupthink.doc/ Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). How Can Decision Making Be Improved? Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). How Can Decision Making Be Improved? Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparitive Analysis Of Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 51-71. Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparitive Analysis Of Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 51-71. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102-111. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102-111.