Alternative rules for making collective decisions. Great encyclopedia of oil and gas

IN Everyday life Many decisions are made not by individuals, but by groups. Family members jointly decide where to spend their holidays; a jury of judges finds the defendant guilty; the city council votes to increase property taxes, or the president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff decide to send troops into an international conflict zone. What does such decision-making have in common with individual decision-making, and how do they differ? Group decisions - are they better or worse? What is more in them: risk or caution? Are they more prudent or reckless? We will consider these questions in this section.

Group polarization

In the 1950s, it was generally accepted that group decisions tended to be more cautious and conservative. It has been argued, for example, that as business decisions are increasingly made by committees, bold, innovative risk-taking by an entrepreneur (such as Andrew Carnegie) is becoming a thing of the past (see, for example, Whyte, 1956). James Stoner, then a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, decided to test this assumption (Stoner, 1961).

In Stoner's study, subjects were asked to consider a series of hypothetical dilemmas. In one, an electrical engineer must decide whether to stay in his current job with a modest but reasonable salary or go to work for a new company that offers more money and a possible partnership in a new venture if successful, but without long-term guarantees. To another person with serious illness heart disease must significantly change the usual way of life or decide on an operation that will either completely cure it or prove fatal. Subjects were asked to decide what the chances of success would be before they would advise that person to take a riskier route. For example, they might recommend that an engineer take a risky job if the chances of success in a new venture are 5 in 10, or 3 in 10, or just 1 in 10. By using such numerical odds measures, Stoner was able to quantitatively compare the riskiness of different decisions.

In this study, subjects first made decisions individually, separately. Then they gathered as a group and made a group decision on all dilemmas. After the group decision, they again considered these dilemmas privately, individually. When Stoner compared group decisions with the average of pre-group individual decisions, he found that group decisions were riskier than the original individual decisions. Moreover, this shift reflected a genuine change of opinion among some group members, rather than simply compliance with the group's decision: individual decisions made after the group decision were significantly riskier than the original ones.

These results were subsequently repeated by other researchers, even in situations where subjects faced real rather than hypothetical risks (Bem, Wallach, & Kogan, 1965; Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1964, 1962). This phenomenon was first called the “risk shift” effect. But it turned out that this was an inaccurate characterization. Even in early studies, group decisions were slightly biased, but always in the direction of greater caution, which was evident in one or two hypothetical dilemmas (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1962). After many, many studies, it became clear that group discussion does not necessarily lead to a riskier, but rather a more extreme, option than an individual decision: if group members are initially inclined to take a risky solution to a particular dilemma, the group will make an even riskier decision; if group members are initially cautious, the group will behave even more cautiously. Accordingly, this phenomenon is now called the group polarization effect (Myers & Lamm, 1976).

There are now over 300 studies of the group effect of polarization, with a huge number of variations. For example, in one recent study, active burglars actually carefully inspected houses and then gave individual and group estimates of how easy it would be to rob each one. Compared with individual estimates, group estimates were more conservative; that is, group estimates suggest that these houses would be more difficult to break into (Cromwell et al., 1991).

Group polarization extends beyond issues of risk and caution. For example, as a result of a group discussion, French students who were initially positive about their prime minister began to have even better attitudes toward him, and their negative attitudes toward Americans became even more negative (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). Jury decisions do the same, leading to more extreme verdicts (Isozaki, 1984). Jury polarization occurs more often with respect to values ​​and opinions (for example, when deciding what would be the most appropriate punishment for a guilty person) than with respect to factual aspects of the case (for example, the guilt of the defendant), and is more likely to occur when they are required to attend to a unanimous decision, as they usually do (Kaplan & Miller, 1987).

Over the years, many explanations for the group polarization effect have been proposed, but two have survived the most severe scrutiny: informational influence and normative influence (Isenberg, 1986). Informational influence occurs when people learn new information and hear new arguments that are relevant to the decision being discussed. For example, when discussing whether an electrical engineer should take a new venture, the decision usually skews toward risk—almost always someone in the group states that it is a worthwhile risk because an electrical engineer will always find a good job. Caution bias was observed in a study with burglars after one of the group noticed that it was almost 3 pm and the children would soon be home from school and playing nearby.

The more arguments raised during a discussion in favor of a position, the more likely it is that the group will shift towards it. And this is where bias comes in: group members are more likely to speak in favor of the position they originally held and are more likely to renegotiate information that has already been exchanged (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989; Stasser & Titus, 1985). Accordingly, the discussion will tend to favor the group's original position, and the group will move toward that position as more group members become convinced of it. Interestingly, the polarization effect occurs even when everyone is given an extensive list of arguments before the experiment begins, a fact that some scientists argue calls into question the informational explanation of the effect (Zuber, Crott, & Werner, 1992).

Normative influence occurs when people compare their own views with the norms of the group. During the discussion, they may learn that others hold similar attitudes or even more extreme views. If they are interested in being viewed positively by the group, they may accommodate the group's position or even express more extreme point vision compared to the group. As one researcher noted, “to be virtuous... is to differ from the average in the right direction and by the right amount” (Brown, 1974, p. 469).

But normative influence is not simply expressed in conformity. Often a group provides its members with a frame of reference, a context within which they can re-evaluate their original positions. This illustrates a common and humorous event that is observed in group polarization experiments. For example, in one group, a subject began a discussion of an electrical engineer's dilemma by confidently stating, “I think this guy should really take a chance here. He should go on new job, even if the chances of success are 5 out of 10.” Other members of the group were skeptical: “You think 5 out of 10 is a risk? If he has any willpower, he should try himself, even if the chance of success is 1 in 100. I mean, what does he have to lose? In an effort to restore his reputation as a risk taker, the first participant quickly shifts his position further in the direction of risk. By redefining what constitutes “risk,” the group thus shifted, after discussion, both its decision and the attitudes of its members toward the risk pole (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1962; private notes from authors).

As this example shows, in a group discussion both informational and normative influences operate simultaneously. Several studies have attempted to separate them. Some work has shown that the polarization effect occurs when subjects simply hear a group's arguments without knowing the actual positions of the other group members (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977, 1973). This indicates that information influence alone is sufficient to create polarization. According to others, the polarization effect also occurs when people learn about the positions of other members but do not hear any arguments in support of them, which implies that normative influence alone is sufficient (Goethals & Zanna, 1979; Sanders & Baron, 1977). . Typically, informational influence has a stronger effect than normative influence (Isenberg, 1986).

Groupthink

“How could we be so stupid?” was President John F. Kennedy's reaction to his administration's disastrous 1961 attempt to mount an invasion of Cuba via Pigs Bay to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro. The plan was poorly thought out on many levels. For example, in the event of an unsuccessful landing, the interventionists initially planned to retreat to the mountains. But no one on the planning team studied the map in enough detail to realize that no army could have crossed the 80 miles of swampy marshes that separated these same mountains from the landing site. But it turned out that this did not matter, since another miscalculation resulted in the destruction of the invading force long before the retreat was due to begin.

The invasion was conceived and planned by the President and a small group of his advisers. Four years later, one of these advisers, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., blamed himself in his book

“...for remaining silent during these critical discussions... although my guilt was mitigated by the knowledge that taking a stand would have saved nothing except being called a bore. I can only explain my unsuccessful attempt to do something more - and not just ask a few timid questions - by saying that anyone's impulse to put an end to this absurdity would simply be stifled by the very circumstances of the discussion" (Schlezinger, 1965, p. 255 ).

What were the “circumstances of the discussion” that led the group to propose a disastrous course of action? After reading Schlesinger's account, social psychologist Irving Janis proposed a theory of groupthink, a phenomenon in which group members, in the interest of group agreement, come to suppress their own disagreement (Janis, 1982). After analyzing several other solutions foreign policy, Janice articulated the symptoms of groupthink and its preconditions, as well as the symptoms of defective decision making that result from it. They are presented in Fig. 18.10.

I. Preconditions

1) Close-knit group

2) Isolation of the group from external influences

3) Lack of systematic procedures for considering the various pros and cons of a proposed course of action

5) Severe stress

II. Groupthink

Desire to reach agreement and avoid disagreement

III. Symptoms of Groupthink

1) The illusion of invulnerability, morality and unanimity

2) Pressure on dissenters

3) Self-censorship of disagreement

4) Collective rationalization

5) Self-appointed guardians of thought

IV. Decision-making defects in groupthink

1) Incomplete exploration of group goals and alternative courses of action

2) Lack of understanding of the risks associated with the chosen option

3) Poor and incomplete search for relevant information

4) Selectivity and bias when processing available information

5) No re-evaluation of rejected options

6) Lack of a plan in case of unforeseen course of action or failure

(I -> II -> III -> IV)

Rice. 18.10. Causes and consequences of groupthink (after: Janis, 1982)

As shown in the figure, groupthink begins when a cohesive group of decision-makers gathers in isolation from outside influences and does not have systematic procedures for considering the pros and cons of various courses of action. This situation is favored by the presence of an authoritarian leader who clearly favors a particular course of action, as well as intense stress, often resulting from external threats, recent failures, moral dilemmas and the apparent lack of viable alternatives. Recent research has confirmed that groupthink is most likely to occur in situations where there is an external threat to the group (McCauley, 1989). All these conditions contribute strong desire achieve group agreement, maintain it, and avoid “rocking the boat” by dissenters.

Symptoms of groupthink include illusions of invulnerability, morality, and unanimity. They arise due to direct pressure on dissenters or - as follows from Schlesinger's explanations - self-censorship. As a result, team members spend more time rationalizing their decision than realistically examining its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, there are often self-appointed thought guardians - group members who actively seek to prevent the group from considering information that questions the effectiveness or morality of its decisions. For example, the Secretary of Justice (President Kennedy’s brother, Robert) warned Schlesinger in a private conversation: “The President’s position has already been formed. Don't go any further." The Secretary of State withheld from the group information provided by intelligence experts who warned against an invasion of Cuba (Janis, 1982). Finally, in Fig. 18.10 lists defects in the decision-making process that are caused by groupthink and ultimately lead to incorrect decisions.

Janis also analyzed two successful group decisions - the Truman administration's decision to implement the Marshall Plan (which helped rebuild Europe after World War II) and the Kennedy administration's defeat of Soviet efforts to install missiles in Cuba. In later publications, Janis formulated some precautions to avoid the pitfalls of groupthink.

First of all, in his opinion, group members should be taught about groupthink, its causes and consequences. In particular, he suggests: the group leader should encourage an atmosphere of open debate and not openly endorse any position before the discussion begins; that one or more group members be openly assigned the role of "devil's advocate" and actively question the group's decisions in all respects; that outside experts are brought in to challenge the group and provide it with fresh approaches; and finally, once the group has reached agreement, a “second chance” meeting should be organized where members can rediscuss any remaining doubts or reservations (Janis, 1985, 1982).

Janis's theory has also received criticism. First of all, because it is based on historical analysis, and not on laboratory experiments. Experiments have produced mixed results (see, for example, Turner, Pratkanis & Leve, 1992; McCauley, 1989; Calloway, Mariott & Esser, 1985; Longley & Pruitt, 1980; Courtright, 1978; Flowers, 1977). Clearly, the processes that Janis calls groupthink are quite complex, and recent work has attempted to integrate them into a more general theory of group decision making (Aldag & Fuller, 1993).

1. For most people, the term social influence means a direct and deliberate attempt to change their own beliefs, attitudes and behavior. If a person responds to such influence by agreeing with the wishes of the influencer - without changing his own beliefs and attitudes - such a reaction is called a concession. If he changes his beliefs and attitudes at the same time, this reaction is called internalization. Many types of social influence are indirect or unintentional. A person can be influenced even by the mere presence of another individual. A person is also influenced by social norms - implicit rules and ideas about how to behave and what to think. The outcome of direct and intentional social influence often depends on how loyal a person is to social norms.

2. Both humans and animals react faster in the presence of other members of their species. This social relief occurs both when these others perform the same task (participants, co-actors) and when they simply observe (spectators). The presence of others increases motivation levels. It makes it easier correct execution simple reactions, but interferes with complex ones. In humans, cognitive factors such as interest and evaluation by others also play a role.

3. Unrestrained aggressive behavior, sometimes exhibited by crowds, may be the result of a state of deindividuation in which a person weakens his sense of self, experiencing merging with the group and losing his identity. Anonymity reduces self-awareness, promoting deindividuation. The consequences of deindividuation include: weakening of restrictions on impulsive behavior, increased sensitivity to immediate signs and current emotional state, decreased interest in evaluation by others. Being in a group and feeling anonymity, however, does not necessarily lead to increased aggressiveness.

4. A witness to an emergency situation is less likely to intervene during its course if he is part of a group than if he is alone. The two main factors that keep people from intervening are how the situation is defined and the diffusion of responsibility. In an attempt to appear calm, bystanders may define each other's situation as non-emergency, thereby creating a state of collective ignorance. The presence of others diffuses responsibility so that no one person feels the need to act. Bystanders are more likely to intervene if these factors are minimized, especially if at least one person begins to help.

5. In a row classical studies Conformity Solomon Asch discovered that a unanimous group puts strong pressure on an individual to conform to the group's judgments, even when those judgments are actually and obviously wrong. Much less compliance is observed when there is at least one dissenter in the group.

6. In a series of classic studies of obedience, Stanley Milgram showed that ordinary people obey the experimenter's order to apply swipe electric shock to an innocent victim. Factors that jointly create a strong degree of compliance include: social norms (for example, an implicit agreement to continue the experiment until its completion); experimenter supervision; buffers that distance a person from the consequences of his actions; the justifying role of science, forcing people to give up their autonomy in favor of the experimenter. There is also controversy over the ethics of these experiments themselves.

7. Submission to authority can be undermined - and rebellion provoked - if the individual is part of a group whose members have the opportunity to exchange opinions, provide each other with social support in disagreement, and have reserves social models insubordination. But then the individual may have to choose between submitting to authority and submitting to a group that has decided to rebel.

8. Research on conformity and obedience shows that situational factors determine behavior more than most people realize. People tend to underestimate the power of situations to influence behavior.

9. The minority of a group can win over its majority to its point of view if it consistently maintains a position of disagreement without being rigid, dogmatic, or arrogant. A minority sometimes achieves a change in the private attitudes of members of the majority, even if it fails to achieve public recognition.

10. Cognitive response theory suggests that a belief caused by a message is actually a self-belief caused by the thoughts a person has while reading or listening to that message. If a message evokes thoughts in support of the position advocated in it, the person will be inclined to favor that position; if the message evokes thoughts that are not in favor of the proposed position - for example, counterarguments or doubts about trusting the source of the message - the person will remain unconvinced.

11. The course of persuasion can cause a change in beliefs and attitudes in two ways: in a direct way, when the individual reacts to the content of the arguments of the message; or in a roundabout way, indirectly, if the individual responds to meaningless features of the message (for example, only the number of arguments) or to features of the context (for example, the level of trust in the source of the message or the pleasantness of the environment). If the message is related to an issue of personal significance, the thoughts it generates are more likely to be a reaction to the content of the message's arguments. When the issue does not involve personal interests, or when people are unwilling or unable to respond to the message, they judge the merits of the message using a simple heuristic - the rule of thumb.

12. In the process of identification, a person submits to the norms and accepts the beliefs, attitudes and behavior of a group that he respects and admires. People use such reference groups to evaluate and regulate their opinions and actions. The reference group regulates attitudes and behavior by applying social rewards and punishments or setting a frame of reference, providing ready-made interpretations of events and social issues.

13. Most people identify with more than one reference group, which can create conflicting pressures on their beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. College students' views are often distant from reference groups their families and approach the college's reference group. In later life, these new views often persist because (a) they are internalized and (b) after college, people select new reference groups—marital partners and friends who share their views.

14. When a group makes a decision, the phenomenon of group polarization often occurs: the group's decision has the same direction as the average of the initial opinions of its members, but it is more extreme. This is not just social conformity; Typically, group members' individual attitudes also shift in response to group discussion. This effect is partly explained by informational influence, in which group members learn new information and hear new arguments relevant to the decision being discussed. Group members provide more arguments for or against their original positions and thereby create a bias in the discussion, pushing the final decision further in the direction of the original positions. Group polarization is also caused by normative influences, in which people compare their initial views with the norms of the group. They can adjust their position so that it corresponds to the position of the majority of the group. In addition, the group may set a frame of reference that causes its members to perceive their original position as too weak or too moderate an expression of their actual attitude.

15. Analysis of catastrophically bad decisions in foreign policy shows that a cohesive group of decision-makers that has an authoritarian leader can fall into the trap of groupthink, where group members suppress their own disagreement in order to achieve general agreement. This gives the entire group the illusion of invulnerability, morality and unanimity. This in turn leads to flawed decision making and poor decisions. It has been suggested that groupthink can be avoided if: the group leader encourages an atmosphere of open debate and does not overtly endorse any position before discussion begins; some group members are openly assigned the role of "devil's advocate"; external experts are involved; and the group is given a "second chance" - an additional meeting at which members can re-examine any remaining doubts and concerns about the decision.

Key terms

"groupthink"

Altruism

Group polarization effect

Deindividuation

Identification

Internalization

Reference group

Social influence

Social relief (facilitation)

Social norms

Concession (compliance)

Questions to Consider

1. If you were a member of a university committee tasked with considering what risks and benefits were associated with a proposed research program, would you vote to conduct Milgram's obedience experiment? Why yes or why not?

2. Can you say what changes in your beliefs and attitudes occurred after you met a new reference group?

3. Discuss how informational and normative influences can cause group polarization in jury decisions. How does the phenomenon of groupthink influence such decisions? Can you name a specific trial in which this phenomenon was likely present?

Page 1

A collective decision promotes mutual assistance, teaches one to approach a problem broadly, makes it possible to look at a phenomenon through the eyes of other people, and increases individual and collective responsibility for decisions and their implementation.

Collective decisions are made based on collective intelligence(group members, collaborating allows you to avoid gross mistakes during their development.

Collective decisions are made in groups. Varieties of such groups can be: management, board, meetings of the Board of Directors of companies, creative groups, etc. Groups have a different hierarchical structure.

Collective solutions have negative sides. They consist in the fact that with monotonous unanimity the participants collective decisions gradually lose interest in criticism and self-criticism. Where there is no criticism, there is no business-like collegial work.

If collective decisions are always based on the collective order R(u), then our community can have more than one choice set. The subject of dispute may be a smaller subset of B, i.e. subset B (of A) of acceptable outcomes.

The type of collective solution is specified by the type of problem solved by the given team.

Making collective decisions is not limited to voting in elections. Decisions are made in commissions, juries, collegiums, in short, in small groups.

What are the characteristics of collective decisions?

To make collective decisions, alternatives must be compared. However, too many options turn out to be incomparable: if one participant prefers one option, and another prefers another, then how to form an opinion about this pair of options for the entire community.

The effectiveness of collective decision making is largely due to the fact that the interaction of group members facilitates individual thinking and engagement in the task.

Proolema of collective decision making in the most general view consists in such a combination of preference systems for individual decision makers so that it is possible to create a single system of preferences for a team consisting of these individuals. A number of formal models of collective decision making have been proposed by Arrow. Attitude; is transitive and related, as is the relation s denoting the collective order of preference on this set.

The effectiveness of collective problem solving is also influenced by motivation (si 1 5), that is, the desire for success. The expert transfers to the analyst one of the most valuable products in the world - knowledge. And while some people share their experience voluntarily and with pleasure, others are very reluctant to reveal their professional secrets.

With the increasing complexity of the tasks of managing production systems, the development and adoption of decisions are increasingly the subject of group, collective creativity.

The main point in the process of collective work on the implementation of management decisions is the determination of the circle of persons participating in this procedure. Most often, this is a temporary team, which usually includes both managers and performers. When forming such a group, the top-level manager responsible for making the decision transfers responsibility for decision-making to the lowest management level. This approach prevents senior managers from getting bogged down in solving small day-to-day problems.

When studying collective decision-making, it is necessary to take into account three main factors on which the rationality of decisions made depends.

The first of these factors is the nature of the task: groups solve various deterministic and risky, static and dynamic, simple and complex problems.

The second important factor is the characteristics of the group: decision-making teams differ in size, competence, management structure, motives for their activities, etc.

The third parameter to consider is the group's operating procedure. A team can use different decision-making methods. Of these, two are especially important. The first method is called formal; in this method, the group uses a strict algorithm that determines how to move from individual decisions to group decisions. Psychologists, economists and sociologists have developed many formal methods that uniquely determine the decision of a team. The second method is informal; it consists in the fact that members of the team discuss this issue quite freely or under some control. As a result of the discussion, which consists of direct interaction between individuals, the best course of action is established.

As already noted, the decision-making process directly depends on the human factor. In management, there are entire approaches (sociological and psychological) that are based on the influence of human consciousness and human relationships on the decision-making process. Within the sociological approach, there are three main groups of theories that describe management decision making:

The theory of political interaction studies the process of making managerial decisions from the point of view of the balance of forces and interests of various groups within the enterprise team and in external environment e. A managerial decision is considered as a political step aimed at strengthening the position of a certain group. Special attention focuses on the influence of reference groups, the distribution of roles and statuses in groups, the logic of the formation of blocs and coalitions.

The theory of collective learning emphasizes that the complexity and dynamic nature of the internal and external environments of any enterprise, combined with a lack of information and experience, transform the process of making management decisions into a process of continuous learning for the manager and the entire team of the enterprise.

Theory corporate culture suggests that the behavior of a team of employees as a single whole is manifested in management decision-making. The “nutrient soil” for any management decision will be corporate culture - a set of beliefs and attitudes common to all employees of the enterprise. There are several levels of corporate culture: superficial (corporate symbols), medium (beliefs, attitudes, rules, norms) and deep (values). Deep values ​​are at play important role in choosing one of several possible enterprise strategies. Rules and regulations are important for choosing tactical measures to implement a strategy.

The following aspects of corporate culture are important for the management decision-making system: individualism and collectivism; attitude towards risk; focus; degree of coordination; manager support; control, self-identification with the entire enterprise or with a group within the enterprise; reward system philosophy; attitude towards conflicts and criticism; nature of communications.

Collective solutions

Most of the cases discussed above involve you making decisions together with another person, but when a decision has to be made by a group of more than two people, things become much more complicated. Here are a few key points.

1. Collective decisions are best when group members trust each other and exchange opinions. If one group member expects nasty things from another, the relationship will collapse. If one thinks that the decisions of other group members are based on vicious motives or that their reasons are insincere, it is impossible to achieve a good decision. Effective decisions can only be based on responsibility and the understanding that, in any possible disagreement, everyone will make an effort to make decisions that benefit the group. This means that it is important to take the time to build community and good relationships. If the relationship between any members of the group is bad, it must be resolved, otherwise the group will not be able to make decisions successfully. It is important that each group member feels that they have a voice and that they are being listened to. Decisions made must be “owned” by the entire group, so having a “boss” telling others what to do is not desirable.

“It is important that each member of the group feels that they have a voice and that they are being listened to.”

2. The group must understand that there is a problem that needs to be solved. If some members of a group are conservative, then the entire group as a whole can become conservative. One reason for this is that if one of its respected members is not inclined to change, then the group is not inclined to challenge his point of view. To avoid this, the group needs to focus on what its goals are, what it wants to achieve, and whether it can do it. If her goal is to make a profit, is she making it? If a group is created to help people with disabilities, does it help them and can it do it better? If the group's goal is to maintain contacts with other countries, is it doing everything it can to achieve this? Articulating the group's ideals and goals is an important way to show that there is a problem that needs to be solved. It is important that the whole group recognizes the problem. If you propose a plan for change when many in the group are not convinced that “something needs to be done,” you will not succeed without a fight. Therefore, in order to make any decision, you must first accurately understand the essence of the problem to be solved.

3. Having established that a problem exists, it is necessary to obtain agreement on specific goals. Identification of the problem without identification of the end goal is useless. The problem could be, for example, the departure of group members, but it is impossible to solve this problem until you determine what you want - to look for new members or to bring back those who have left. Are there things you don't do that you should? If a group's profits have fallen, what is your goal?

4. Weigh your options. Once you have identified your goal, consider possible paths to get there. This is where you can use the decision models described in Chapter 3. Encourage group members to look at what benefits come to them personally. various factors and what losses they can cause them. If necessary, remind everyone what kind of group they are trying to be and what the goals of that group are.

If you are leading a group, think carefully about how the different members who will be involved in the decision might behave. What can help them approve the decision? What could be an incentive for them? When presenting alternatives, make sure that the views of everyone affected by the solution are taken into account.

After using your chosen decision model (such as tree diagram or grid analysis), take a vote. If there is a clear predominance of votes in favor, the decision is approved. If there is no consensus, you need to take a step back and listen to people to understand why they did not reach agreement. Work through the controversial points again and try to find the main common positions. Assign weights to the individual factors and use the selected model again. You can choose another model - what if it helps? When reaching a collective solution, it is important to have a clear majority of like-minded people, so continue working until you reach an acceptable solution.

5. During the decision implementation process, assign roles to as many group members as possible. People must feel involved not only in the development of the decision, but also in its implementation. Feeling involved in the development and execution of a decision will unite the group and strengthen it for making collective decisions in the future.

6. Sometimes it may be necessary to find a compromise because it is not possible to find a solution that satisfies all members of the group. For example, big family wants to get together, but half wants to go to the sea, and the other wants to go to a quiet rural corner. How to satisfy everyone? You can still find a collective solution by defining its main goal, for example, to see relatives whom you have not met for many years. In this case, the meeting place does not matter big role. Perhaps it should be chosen taking into account the greatest accessibility for young families; It may be better to meet where most of the family lives. Get everyone to agree on what is most important and make decisions from there. Having listed the most important factors and by getting people to agree on which of these factors is most important, secondary factors like who should schedule kitchen duties can be left aside.

Dangers of collective decision-making

There are dangers in collective decision-making that you need to be aware of in order to try to avoid them.

The decision-making process may become directionless. When many people are involved in the decision making process different points sight and possibly with different programs, the discussion can become a bazaar, so there will be no forward movement. It is very important to define the group's goals and current state of affairs from the very beginning. This will allow you to focus on the main question: how to change it in accordance with your intended goals.

Someone alone strives to dominate. Sometimes there is a danger that one of the group members tries to impose his own version of the solution. In such cases, it is important that the meeting leader or other group members provide everyone else with an opportunity to express their opinions and ensure that those opinions are taken into account. People should not be silenced; this almost always leads to bad decisions. The best decisions are achieved when all points of view and approaches are taken into account. Limiting yourself to one opinion means lowering the quality of the decision. If necessary, invite everyone to take turns giving their opinions. And if you notice that you yourself are talking too much, stop and give the floor to others.

Try to be a conciliator. If the group splits up, try to find a middle path. On what points is there agreement and on what points is there not? Focus on those on which there is agreement. If there are difficult members in the group, try to find a way to make them feel like they accomplished something, even if the decision doesn't fit their point of view. For some people final result less important than the feeling of "victory". Sometimes if you throw them a bone, they will pay less attention to other issues.

It's always wise to give people time to think before starting a discussion. Before a group meeting, send out an agenda to all group members with a list of issues to be discussed, or communicate the main issues in advance. Otherwise, there is a danger that people will not be able to justify their positions well during the discussion.