The quality of a manager’s judgments and outcomes may be considerably improved by involving more individuals in the decision-making processes. On the other hand, involving additional individuals might exacerbate conflict and create new issues. When people are engaged in judgment, people are more likely to accept diverse points of view and views. Varied members of the group will have different preferences, views, prejudices, and preconceptions in a diverse collection (Angi English, 2019). The collective decision adds to a manager’s workload since a range of opinions must be discussed and worked through, but it also tends to reduce the impacts of prejudice on the conclusion.
In my organization, group decision-making is adopted; however, the board that makes these decisions is checked and evaluated by all employees in order to reduce difficult economic and social situations. At the moment, I fully support the decision-making process, as all points are explained and justified by the development of the company and the improvement of the working environment for all employees. The main issue that I would introduce as an improvement is the introduction of a monthly change in the composition of the collegium in the form of one employee who passed by vote. Thus, all employees can influence the company’s work and improve its future performance.
When group members strive to avoid disagreements as much as possible, they develop groupthink. Somewhat of confronting disagreement, colleagues may try to persuade themselves to embrace plans of action with which they disagree. Groupthink is frequently the outcome of a lack of common sense, which is typically associated with a know-it-all mentality. This can soon manifest itself as condescension and generalization, two classic characteristics of groupthink. It may also provide the impression of unanimous agreement: the assumption that everyone is on the same page when they are not. Emotional stability is a comparatively recent notion in the workplace, yet it is critical. This is the understanding that raising concerns or making a mistake will not result in reprimands or punishment.
Instead of giving preference to proposals that have received consensus or have been proposed by senior colleagues, people should honestly evaluate ideas based on their quality. Before agreeing on an action plan, peers should ask all group members to write down the advantages and disadvantages of each option. People may counteract this by holding their thoughts to themselves at first, encouraging the rest of the group to use collaboration and discussion to come up with their own. Each person should speak out during group meetings in order to develop harmony in the inner society. People will feel more comfortable deferring choices to conventional decision-makers and keeping their thoughts to themselves when a gathering grows in size.
I believe that successful managers will strive to make broad choices by forming groups of a wide variety of people who can represent a range of points of view. As more teams move to virtual meetings and telecommuting, I am sure there is potential to introduce methods and techniques that encourage judgment rather than hinder it. People should use means of communication across channels, such as video conferencing and desktop sharing, and create strategies to include silent team members in discussions. This will help strengthen team harmony and ultimately benefit the company.
Reference
Angi English. (2019). Groupthink and the challenger explosion [Video]. YouTube.