Our group used the consensus type of decision making. It is quite similar to the majority rule. The difference lies in the fact that each individual has his/her own principle and why they value their decision as such. Persons agree to make a decision that they think will work. The strategic plan that the group used was on a consensus about the issue at hand. Whenever they participate in the problem-solving, they feel accepted and that increases each individual’s self-esteem such that they are able to contribute substantially to the project. Because of a better understanding of the decision, the communication smoothly flows and individuals participate freely in the discussions. (Group Decision Making)
Group decision making is quite different from individual decision making because of the effect of accountability. According to studies, male groups are more affected by accountability than female groups. (Kroon, et al). Group decision making entails the cooperation of several mature individuals and the ability of their leaders to make the group cohesive. If this is lacking in a group, then, there would be no good results. Individual decision making does not connote much accountability except on oneself. There is no blaming others and the individual is spared the derision of others if the decision fails.
Group decision-making affects the cohesion and motivation of the group. People in our group are more collective in the way they make their decisions under normal or extreme conditions. Our team spends time in analyzing the problems, exchange, form and evaluating of ideas and solutions. (Team decision-making). A lot of the success of our group is probably due to the leaders who motivate, inspire, and make the environment safe for risks and mistakes. They also demonstrate the ability to lead by example, ethically, morally and purposefully. Everyone regularly communicate the vision and empower the culture within the organization. We continue to build trust within the group understanding that it is necessary to incorporate balance in each of the participant’s lives. This encourages people to think about life and work differently.
Our group was able to reduce group biases and errors because of the continuous communication that take place every time a decision has to be reached. This was done in a subtle way as the leader conducted team building exercises that made each one open to everyone else. Thus, stereotyping was minimized and everyone remained open to each other.
The implication of social influence on individuals is that they learn how to manage the work team’s internal processes; they improve the likelihood of the team being effective because they are concerned about the social influence it may have on their being members of other groups in the school or community to where they belong. With a better understanding of specific problem areas, team members can then be encouraged to develop their own approaches to decision making in addressing problems. Moreover, the satisfaction of belonging to a group will also be influenced by the status of the group, the reflected glory that it confers upon the members. This is a kind of halo effect. Some national and local groups have this effect and it is regarded almost as an honor to belong to them. Outside benefits conferred in this way by membership of a group add to its attractiveness and cohesiveness. The same effect might work either way in youth clubs, or in specific classes in school. Clubs that are highly regarded in their own vicinity will be more attractive to their members, whereas a club with a bad reputation will have the opposite effect, that of detracting from the social stature of the young person who joins it. Part of the strategy may be this regard, in order to enable them to be more generous and helpful to one another (Schwarz,).
As these principles applicable to any group setting, in sum, the research reinforces the idea that when everyone is dipping their fingers in a program from the very start, the whole group suffers and it is clearly seen that the people do not work as robots, like in a so-called mass production but in a more warm setting of “team production” which increasingly means that people in the process become knowledge workers who are knowledgeable about their group, the process and the services they offer wherever they go.
Group Decision Making. Retrieved July 7, 2007 at:
Kroon, M., Van Kreveld, D. and Rabbie, J. Effects of Accountability and Gender on Groupthink. Group Versus Individual Decision Making. University of Utrecht. Retrieved July 7, 2007 at:
Schwarz, R. (Jan., 1995), The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing
Effective Groups. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-
PART, Vol. 5, No. 1 pp. 99-103