1. And its impact on decision making
Presentation by:
Iman M.Ahmed
Rawda Hassan Dai
Rowida A. Abd/ALrahman

2. Unique features:
 -Social influence (acting collectively).
 -Analyze problems/situation.
 -Consider alternative action.
 -Select the most probable one.

3.  Decision
making (D.M) is a vital component of
small business success. Many Organizational
decisions are made by group that can be
defined as “two or more interacting and
interdependent individuals who come together
to achieve a particular goals.

4. Reasons behind D.M:
-Synergy (mutual influences and
encouragement in the group.
-To gain commitment to a decision.

5. Advantages:
-More knowledge and information.
-Increased acceptance of, and commitment to
the decision.
-greater understanding of decision .
Disadvantages:
-Pressure within the group to conform and
fit in (group think).
-Domination of the group by one forceful
member or a dominant elite.
-Time consuming.

6.  Defined
as:
“ a type of conformity in
which group members
withhold different or
unpopular views in
order to give the
appearance of
agreement”

7. “ A psychological drive for
consensus at any cost that
suppresses disagreement and
prevent appraisal alternative in
cohesive decision making”
Janis, I.L.( 1972), p. 9

8. a deterioration of mental
efficiency, reality, testing and moral
judgment resulting from in-group
pressures.”, Robbins & Coulter (2002),
“

9. Janis’s Groupthink model
Antecedents
Observable consequences
Groupthink symptom:
Cohesive Group
1. Overestimation of group: Illusion of
invulnerability; Belief in own morality
2. Closed-Mindedness:
Collective rationalization; Stereotyping of
out- groups
Structural faults
Insulation
3. Uniformity pressures:
Lack of impartial
leadership
1Self Censorship
2Illusion of unanimity
3Direct Pressure
4Mind -guards
Lack of decision method
Homogeneous members
Provocative context
Concurrence
seeking
External threat
Symptoms of defective
decision making:
Low self esteem from
previous failure
•Incomplete survey of
alternatives
Poor decision
outcome
Source: Janis,I.L.,(1972); (1982). P.244
Incomplete survey of
objectives
Failure to examine risk of
preferred choice
Poor information search
Selective information bias
Failure to workout
contingency plan

10. Group cohesiveness is:” the degree to
which members are attracted to one
another and share the group
goals”, Robins….et.al, (2005) p.343.
It is the “interpersonal glue” that makes
members of a group stick together” Nelson
& Quick (1996), p.139.

11. Janis’s Groupthink model
Antecedents
Cohesive Group
Structural faults
Insulation
Lack of impartial
leadership
Lack of decision method
Homogeneous members
•Binding & filling of the
group
•Directive, subjective and
biased.
• No procedures for
developing and evaluating
alternatives.
•Tendancy to avoid conflict
and to demand conformity.
Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

12. Janis’s Groupthink model
Antecedents
Cohesive Group
Structural faults
Insulation
Lack of impartial
leadership
Lack of decision method
Homogeneous members
Leading to high stress
Provocative context
External threat
Low self esteem from
previous failure
Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

13. Janis’s Groupthink model
Antecedents
Cohesive Group
Structural faults
Insulation
Lack of impartial
leadership
Lack of decision method
Homogeneous members
Concurrence seeking
Provocative context
External threat
Low self esteem from
previous failure
These conditions cause members to
prefer concurrence or consensus in
decisions and to fail to evaluate one
another’s suggestions critically. That
is the tendency of group think.
Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

14. Janis’s Groupthink model
Antecedents
Observable consequences
Groupthink symptom:
Cohesive Group
1. Overestimation of group: Illusion of
invulnerability; Belief in own morality
2. Closed-Mindedness:
Collective rationalization; Stereotyping of
out- groups
Structural faults
Insulation
3. Uniformity pressures:
Lack of impartial
leadership
1Self Censorship
2Illusion of unanimity
3Direct Pressure
4Mind -guards
Lack of decision method
Homogeneous members
Provocative context
Concurrence
seeking
External threat
Low self esteem from
previous failure
Source: Janis,I.L.,(1072); (1982). P.244

15. Illusion of invulnerability: Group
members feel they are above criticism.
This symptoms leads to excessive
optimism and risk tacking.
Belief in own morality: Group members
feel they are moral in their actions and
therefore above reproach or blame. This
symptom leads the group to ignore the
ethical implications of their decisions.

16. Collective rationalization: Group members
make up explanations for their decisions to
make them appear rational and correct.
Members discount warnings and do not
reconsider their assumptions. The results are
that other alternatives are not
considered, and there is an unwillingness to
reconsider the groups.
Stereotyping of out- groups: Competitors are
stereotyped as evil or stupid. This leads the
group to underestimate its opposition.

17. •Self Censorship: Members do not
express their doubts about the
course of action. This prevents
critical analysis of the decisions.
•Illusion of unanimity: Group
members believe there is
unanimous agreement on the
decisions. Silence is misconstrued as
consent.

18. •Direct Pressure: Peer pressure. Any
member who express doubt or
concerns are pressured by other
group members, who question their
loyalty.
•Mind –guards: Some members take it
upon themselves to protect the group
from negative feedback. Group
members are thus shielded from
information that might lead them to
question their actions.

19. Janis’s Groupthink model
Antecedents
Observable consequences
Groupthink symptom:
Cohesive Group
1. Overestimation of group: Illusion of
invulnerability; Belief in own morality
2. Closed-Mindedness:
Collective rationalization; Stereotyping of
out- groups
Structural faults
Insulation
3. Uniformity pressures:
Lack of impartial
leadership
1Self Censorship
2Illusion of unanimity
3Direct Pressure
4Mind -guards
Lack of decision method
Homogeneous members
Provocative context
Concurrence
seeking
External threat
Symptoms of defective
decision making:
Low self esteem from
previous failure
•Incomplete survey of
alternatives
Poor decision
outcome
Source: Janis,I.L.,(1972); (1982). P.244
Incomplete survey of
objectives
Failure to examine risk of
preferred choice
Poor information search
Selective information bias
Failure to workout
contingency plan

22. *Each member should be assume the role
of critical evaluator who actively voices
objections or doubts.
*Have the leader avoid stating his/has
position on the issue prior to the group.

23. Create several groups that work on the
decision simultaneously.
*Bring in outside experts to evaluate the
group process.

24. *Appointed a “devil’s advocate” to question
the group’s course of action consistently.
*Evaluate the competitions carefully, posing
as many different motivations and intentions
as possible.

25. *Once consensus is reached, encourage
the group to rethink its position by
reexamining the alternatives.
*Stimulating conflict.

26.  Brainstorming
 Dialectic
Inquiry
 Devil’s advocacy
 Nominal Group Technique
 Delphi technique

27. •Is a technique for generating alternatives.
•Is relatively unstructured.
•The situation or problem described in details.
• Group members are encouraged to generate
alternative and to build upon the suggestions of
others considering imagination.

28. Limitation and difficulties of brainstorming:
•Although, brainstorming is good to generate
alternatives, but does not offer much in the
way of process for evaluating alternative or
the selecting of proposed course of action.
* Fear from judgment and criticism.

29. •
•
•
Dialectical Inquiry is a debate between two
opposing sets of recommendations.
It is a constructive approach.
It brings out the benefits and limitations of
both sets of ideas.

30. The Dialectic Decision Method
1. A proposed course of action is generated
2. Assumption underlying the proposal are identified
3. A conflicting counterproposal is generated based on different
assumptions
4. Advocates of each position present and debate the merits of their
proposals before key decision makers
5. The decision to adopt either position, or some other
position, e.g., a compromise, is taken
6. The decision is monitored

31. *Similarly, in the Devil’s Advocacy decision
method, is a group or individual that given
the role of critic
*The devil’s advocate has the task of coming
up with the potential problems of proposed
decision.
*These techniques help organizations avoid
costly mistakes in decision making by
identifying potential pitfalls in advance.

32. A Devil’s Advocate Decision Programs
1. A proposed course of action is generated
2. A devil’s advocate (individual or group) is assigned to
criticize the proposal
3. The critique is presented to key decision makers
4. Any additional information relevant to the issues is gathered
5. The decision to adopt, modify, or discontinue the proposed
course of action is taken
6. The decision is normal

33. A structured approach to decision making
that focuses on generating alternatives
and choosing one is called nominal group
technique (NGT

34. A small group of 4-5 people gathers around a table. Leader
identifies judgment issue and gives participants procedural
instructions.
Participants write down all ideas that occur to them, keeping
their lists private at this point. Creativity is encouraged during
this phase.
Leader asks each participant to present ideas and writes them
on a blackboard or flipchart, continuing until all ideas have
been recorded.
Participants discuss each other’s
ideas, clarifying, expanding, and evaluating them as a group.
Participants rank ideas privately in their own personal order
and preference.
The idea that ranks highest among the participants is adopted
as the group’s judgment.

35. *The Delphi technique adopted to gather the
judgments of experts for use in decision
making.
*Experts at remote locations respond to a
questionnaire. A coordinator summarizes the
responses to the questionnaire.

36. •The summary is sent back to the experts.
•The experts then rate the various
alternatives generated. The coordinator
tabulates the results.
•The Delphi technique is valuable in its
ability to generate a number of
independent judgments without the
requirement of a face-to-face meeting.

37. -There are various factors contribute to
effectiveness of group decision making . This is
why no one can say “a group decision making
is always better or is always worse” than
individual decision making.
-For example a multinational companies work
in external and internal environment
, affected by these factors both positively and
negatively.
- Recently, most organizations are tend to turn
groups into effective teams.

38. -A work team is a formal groups made up
of interdependent individuals who are
responsible for the attainment of a goal.
-Reasons behind uses of work team
 increases flexibility.
 creates esprit de corps.
 increases performance.
 take advantage of workforce diversity.
 allows managers to do more strategic
management.