Groups in Organizations

Group behaviour in organisations.

group decision making strategies and pitfalls.

As a rule, decision-making processes are at management level, and decisions are fed downwards through the organisation’s structure. Where group decisions are made, these may be democratic, autocratic or by consensus.

Autocratic decision making is the simplest and most straightforward strategy. It is the process by which the group leader makes the decision alone, using only the information that the leader possesses. The major advantage is that it is fast. However, because the decision is made based only on what s/he knows, the quality of the decision may suffer. An example could be the selection of a new computer package for a company. A variation on the strict autocratic decision making approach occurs when the leader solicits information from group members to assist in reaching a decision, but still holds the final say. This is sometimes referred to as consultative decision making.

Democratic decision making is a different strategy in which all group members are allowed to discuss the decision and then vote on a particular course of action. Typically, the outcome is based on a majority rule. One advantage of this approach is that decisions are made using the pooled knowledge and experience of group members. Moreover, a greater number of alternatives may be considered. Also, because group members have a role in the process, they are more likely to follow the chosen course.

The most obvious drawback to democratic decision making is that it is time-consuming. Because it encourages conflict, it can also be inefficient. Finally, although it can result in a satisfied majority, there may be a disgruntled minority who resists its implementation.

A strategy that overcomes some of the weaknesses of democratic decision making is to make decisions based on consensus. In this process, all group members, without exception, have agreed on the chosen course of action. Because it is very time-consuming, this method is only used for very important decisions. For example, juries use this strategy because the decision taken affects the future freedom of the accused. Some company executive boards may strive for consensus when taking major decisions about changes in direction of the organisation or in organisational structure or company policy. As would be expected, the outcome of consensus decision making is usually a high-quality,