1 / 21

Managing Decision-Making Processes: Debate and Buy-in

Managing Decision-Making Processes: Debate and Buy-in. MIIC April 20, 2009 Prof. Morten Hansen. 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

lance
Download Presentation

Managing Decision-Making Processes: Debate and Buy-in

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing Decision-Making Processes:Debate and Buy-in MIIC April 20, 2009 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: • First sub-group develops a solution • 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

  8. Data from exercise: more conflict in D/I and D/A Average reported Level* Difference Consensus D/A & D/I *) Scale: from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high) Source: MIIC exercise April 2009

  9. Cognitive conflict associated with more critical analysis

  10. However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group

  11. Problem is, cognitive and affective conflicts tend to go hand-in-hand

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

  13. Benefit from cognitive conflict 0.48/0.53 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 April 2009

  14. … but also increases affective conflict 0.48/0.53 Devil’s advocacy + Cognitive conflict + Debate alternatives, Deep analysis, New ideas + Better decisions + Stimulate conflict and debate 0.38 to 0.45 + Affective Conflict + Dialectical inquiry Note: numbers are correlations from MIIC data April 2009

  15. Sum: Key is to increase cognitive and decrease affective conflicts 0.48/0.53 Devil’s advocacy + Cognitive conflict + Debate alternatives, Deep analysis, New ideas + Better decisions + Stimulate conflict and debate 0.38 to 0.45 + Affective Conflict Personal animosity, Less group harmony, Poor decision acceptance Poor implementation + + + Dialectical inquiry -0.14 to –0.47 Note: numbers are correlations from MIIC data April 2009 Key is to break this path

  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* Dial. Inq. Dev. Adv. Consensus *) Scale: from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high)

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

  19. However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group

  20. Problem is, affective and cognitive conflict correlated

  21. Best spot: high cognitive, low affective

More Related