Individuals make the most fundamental decisions. When several individuals come together in order to form a group, decisions can be made by the leader, and passed to group members in an autocratic manner, or the group can make decisions as a whole. The first approach has the advantage of saving time and resources in the decision making process, but it can result in a high level of resistance to change. By involving group members in the decision making process, the organization can benefit from more creative and possibly better decisions than if only one person were responsible for the choice. In addition, decisions in which all members have input can be implemented with fewer difficulties than decisions made in an autocratic manner.
The Problem Solving Process
Pascarella (1997, p. 38) indicates the decision making, or problem solving, process can be broken down into six phases, some of which overlap in some situations: recognizing the need for a decision; identifying the objectives; identifying alternatives; evaluating alternatives; selecting the best alternative; and, implementing the decision. I would break down the decision-making process into three major phases: the alert, analysis, and action phases. In the alert phase awareness develops that a decision must be made. Either something goes wrong or a need becomes obvious, or a request is made which must be dealt with. The next phase is an analysis of the problems, which bear upon the situation and the potential solutions, which might go to form the foundation of a decision. Choosing the best solution leads to the action phase, in which the decision is implemented.
The Role of the Principal in Group Decision Making
The principal (manager or leader) does not operate in a vacuum. Even if the principal decides an issue with no input form teachers, those teachers nevertheless take part in the implementation of that decision. Therefore, the principal can not overlook the attitudes of the teachers in any decision-making process, whether those attitudes come into play in the alert, analysis, or action phase. No matter how carefully the principal analyzes problems and reaches decisions, his or her teachers will ultimately determine whether or not the plan will work. The degree to which teachers will have to be involved in these decisions will be an individual determination. In some cases a principal might decide that teachers can profitably help analyze the problem, participate in developing alternatives, and help decide what should be done. This would be a very high degree of participation and would more likely gain the full support of teachers.
Many decisions result naturally from a thorough problem analysis in which clear goals have been established, alternatives developed and evaluated, and potential consequences measured. However, there is a way of thinking about decision making that is essential for both the leader (the principal) and the participants (the teachers). From the principal's standpoint, it must be clear that the decision is one that is appropriate for a group to decide and not one that should be made by the principal alone. Trouble can develop when principals are not willing to define the parameters associated with the decision making process. This can lead to principals making decisions outside the realm of their responsibility or authority.
Effective principals, therefore, carefully consider their areas of influence and let their subordinates know which decisions they themselves will make and which other groups or individuals will be responsible for. At the beginning of any problem solving activity, the group should reach an understanding about how the decision will be made. If the group's ideas are not binding (that is, if the group is acting in an advisory capacity), its status and the reason for the status should be made clear. If the decision for eventual action is, in fact, the group's responsibility, the particular decision making method should be understood and discussed. Ideally, principals should legitimize all members of the group and their contributions by selecting a decision making process in which everyone participates.
Advantages of Group Decision Making
A group solving problems together will provide participants with a baseline of common understanding and information that cannot be replicated in a memo or through less personal means. Such involvement results in a greater sympathy toward the complexities of the problem, and sets the groundwork for the group's acceptance of the eventual solution. Effective communication, understanding of and the eventual acceptance of a solution are closely related to one another, and group decision making enhances this interrelationship. (Hollenbeck, et al, 1994, p. 310)
Another advantage of group decision making is that individuals come into a problem-solving situation with personal biases, needs and perspectives. A group setting offers an environment which legitimizes a variety of viewpoints. Usually, provided that good information is provided in an intelligent manner and a climate exists in which individuals are not compelled to defend their positions, a group will move toward the best ideas. (Parnell & Bell, 1994, p. 520)
A good experience in a group can generate enthusiasm and can be contagious, thus enhancing the morale of all group members. The commitment toward eventual action can come out of this teamwork, as well as from the building of alternatives and even through the discussions that are associated with group decision making. Individuals have the opportunity to enhance their self-esteem through their contribution and relationship to the group. Similarly, the give-and-take discussion in a group can bring about new ideas that may not have been thought of by an individual acting alone. Different from the formal presentation of new ideas in a group setting, open discussion encourages members to be irreverent, to question precedent and to challenge the way that the company has historically performed tasks.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of group decision making is the inherent recognition in the process that problem solving is a multidimensional process that can involve large number of people. The more involvement that individuals have during this potentially impersonal process, the greater the likelihood that the decision will be successfully accepted and implemented (Dennis & Valacich, 1994, p. 725).
Disadvantages of Group Decision Making
The results of group decision making can be dismissed by those in positions of influence who are unwilling to give credence to a process which few of them have experienced in a positive light. If a manager has participated in unsuccessful group decision-making processes in the past, he or she is unlikely to embrace decisions coming out of new groups, regardless of how valid those decisions might be. (Migliarese & Paolucci, 1993, p. 33)
There is also the strong disadvantage that participants will become disillusioned if the leader or another influential participant is fulfilling a hidden agenda. In this scenario, what was perceived to be a fair and open process is instead turned into a charade in which decisions have already been made and group participation is provided as a means of placating those who have to implement that decision. If a less than honest approach is taken to the process, the results are not credible.
The effectiveness of a group decision is based in large part on the effectiveness of the group leader. This requires some amount of training in order to prepare the leader for effectively building groups in order to maintain a high quality of the process. If the leader is ineffectual, the group decision making process can deteriorate from a valuable management tool to a large waste of resources.
Another disadvantage of group decision making arises from the quality and knowledge base of the various group members. If the group is put together haphazardly or with more attention to office politics than what each member can contribute, the decisions reached by the group are likely to be questionable. By including individuals with the various technical backgrounds and professional experience, yet avoiding overloading the group with too many individuals with similar backgrounds, organizations can help ensure that they receive the best possible decisions.
One of the most significant disadvantages to the group decision making process is the fact that groups are composed of individuals, and individuals may have personality conflicts or personal problems with each other. In this way, a single individual or a few individuals may come to dominate the group and thus reduce the effectiveness of the process. An effective leader can help reduce this potential, but may himself become overwhelmed by highly dominant personalities without strong management skills.
Conclusion
There are six phases to the decision making process; while some of these steps might overlap in simple decisions, none can be overlooked without compromising the entire process. It is the principal's role to guide the decision making process and to determine whether it is appropriate to make the decision on his own, or with outside input. The principal also needs to take into account the implementation of the eventual decision; such implementation plans should be part of the decision making process and influence the chosen alternative.
An increased use of work groups and work teams has led to an increased awareness of group decision making. Groups do not eliminate the need for principals, but principals in groups are usually facilitators who ensure that each member is able and permitted to contribute to the group. Even in highly participatory environments, there are some decisions which cannot be delegated to the group process; in these situations, the principal is responsible for making decisions independent of the group. In many situations, however, it is entirely appropriate and even desirable for the group to make decisions. The benefits of group decision making include better acceptance (and implementation) of the decisions, better decisions through enhanced creativity, and an overall cohesiveness that is difficult to achieve when decisions are made independently.
After all this talk of groups, I reluctantly conclude that most often the decision is one “which the principal alone must make,” with input from teachers only when absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, significant benefits come to the school as a whole which is derived from an expanded decision-making process. The major drawbacks - - - the process takes longer, each individual participates less actively than in an elite situation - - - are outweighed by the fact that when the expanded process arrives at a decision that decision is more swiftly and smoothly implemented.
The various sources above speak to several articles and case studies used in the A770 course. If LaBlanc had an exhortation on administration-faculty groups perhaps he would have spent more time at Marlboro and made himself more available to senior staff. The Springfield College President failed to fit into the group culture. The email from MP1 clearly reinforces the point that even where group decision making exist the group decision is often overridden by the group leader when MP1 selected the AfricanAmerican female Chief Operating Officer candidate. The sources above provide an added dimension to the Bensimon and Neuman article on "Administrative Teams and Team Work". The paper serves to reinforce Hackman's statement "Teams composed of people from different units can transcend traditional functional and organizational barriers and get members pulling together toward collective objectives".
References
Margolis, Diane Rothbard. (1979) The Managers. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Dennis, A. R. & Valacich, J. S. (1994, Winter). Group, sub-group, and nominal group idea generation. Journal of Management, pp. 723-736.
Hollenbeck, J. R., et al. (1995, April). Multilevel theory of team decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 292316.
Migliarese, P., & Paolucci, E. (1993, May-June). A system for group production planning in manufacturing. Interfaces, pp. 29-40.
Parnell, J. A. & Bell, E. D. (1994, February). The propensity for participative decision making scale. Administration & Society, pp. 518-530.
Pascarella, P. (1997, May). The secret of turning thinking into action. Management Review, pp. 38-39.
