210 likes | 365 Views
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
E N D
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 • 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
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
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
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”
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”
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
However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group
Problem is, cognitive and affective conflicts tend to go hand-in-hand
Use DI or DA to stimulate debate Devil’s advocacy + Stimulate conflict and debate + Dialectical inquiry
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
… 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
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
Additional data from another student group, INSEAD MBAs (n=110) This is a larger group so more validity. The conclusions are very similar
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)
Cognitive conflict in D/A and D/I associated with critical evaluation New recommendations/assumptions Evaluating assumptions
However, affective conflict negatively correlated with implementation and enjoying working with the group