Team Decision Making

Karl A. SmithPurdue University/

University of Minnesotaksmith@umn.edu

Engineers Leadership InstituteMinnesota Society for

Professional Engineers

December, 2006

Team Decision Making… The New They'll Never Take Us Alive!!

The top fifteen causes of death in the United States in 2003 in alphabetical order. The data are based on an annual review of death certificates. Your task is to rank them in decreasing order of number of deaths caused each year. Place the number 1 next to the one that causes the most deaths, the number 2 by the next, and so forth.

To Group Members: TASKS1. Individually determine the ranking.2. Determine one ranking for the group.3. Every group member must be able to explain the rationale for the group's

ranking.4. When your group finishes (each member has signed), (a) record your

estimated number of fatalities in the U.S. for each, and then (b) compare your ranking with that of another group.

The New They'll Never Take Us Alive!!

Product or Activity Ranking Number of FatalitiesAccidentsAlzheimer's diseaseBlood poisoningCancerDiabetesHeart diseaseHypertensionInfluenza and PneumoniaKidney diseaseLiver diseaseLung diseaseParkinson’ diseasePneumonitis StrokeSuicide

Postdecision Questionaire

1. How understood and listened to did you feel in your group?Not at all 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 Completely

2. How much influence do you feel you had in your group’s decision making?None 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 A great deal

3. How committed do you feel to the decision your group made?None 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 A great deal

4. How much responsibility do you feel for making the decision work?None 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 A great deal

5. How satisfied do you feel with the amount and quality of your participation in your group’s decision makingDissatisfied 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 Satisfied

6. Write one adjective that describes the atmosphere in your group during the decision making

They’ll Never Take Us Alive Team Decision-Making Process

• How– Individual

– Mathematical

– Consensus

– Iterative – H, M, L

– Both ends toward the middle

• Assumptions/Biases– Family/Friends

– News

– Youth

– Geographic location

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, F.P. 1991. Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Prentice-Hall

Methods of Decision Making (Johnson & Johnson, 1991)

See Table Summarizing Disadvantages and Advantages

1. Decision by authority without discussion2. Expert member3. Average of member’s opinions4. Decision by authority after discussion5. Majority control6. Minority control7. Consensus

Choice of Decision-Making Method Depends On:

1. The type of decision to be made.2. The amount of time and resources available.3. The history of the group.4. The nature of the task being worked on5. The kind of climate the groups wishes to

establish6. The type of setting in which the group is

working

Johnson & Johnson, 1991

Characteristics of Effective Decisions:

1. The resources of the group members are well used.

2. Time is well used.3. The decision is correct, or of high quality.4. The decision is put into effect fully by all the

necessary members' commitment.5. The problem-solving ability of the group is

enhanced.

Johnson & Johnson, 1991

Two Approaches to Decision MakingGarvin & Roberto, 2001. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 108-116.

Advocacy Inquiry

Concept of decision making

A contest Collaborative problem solving

Purpose of discussion Persuasion and lobbying Testing and evaluation

Participants’ role Spokespeople Critical thinkers

Pattern of behavior Strive to persuade others

Defend your position

Downplay weaknesses

Present balanced arguments

Remain open to alternatives

Accept constructive criticism

Minority views Discouraged or dismissed

Cultivated and valued

Outcome Winners and losers Collective ownership

A Litmus Test (Gavin & Roberto)

•Multiple Alternatives•Assumption Testing•Well-defined Criteria•Dissent and Debate•Perceived FairnessGavin, David A. and Roberto, Michael A. 2001. What you don’t know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8), 108-116.