The decision is collective. Methods of collective decision making
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru
1. Collective choice
3. Optimal majority
List of used literature
1. Collective choice
In the sphere of consumption of private goods, the main decisions are made, generally speaking, individually. Each consumer, guided by his own preferences and focusing on market prices, determines the set of goods that suits him most. Due to the divergence of preferences, these sets are naturally not similar to each other. When it comes to public goods, the collective nature of the choice of production and consumption parameters is fundamentally significant.
Since all participants in the choice will consume the same set of public goods, individual preferences must be reconciled. In practice, such coordination is most often achieved through the political institutions of democracy. These institutions also make it possible to make decisions regarding redistribution in such a way that they meet the interests of many individuals, and not just an individual. From the point of view of economic theory, the meaning of a democratic state is precisely to ensure that various individual preferences are taken into account when forming a program for the production of public goods and redistribution.
A certain parallel between public choice and the market is obvious. In both cases, there are social mechanisms that make it possible to identify and implement the preferences of individuals in the process of their interaction. The mechanisms work because individuals, seeking to maximize the values of their own utility functions, jointly set in motion flows of goods and income, so that the resulting economic situation is preferable to the initial state for all or many participants in the interaction.
At the same time, the differences between the two types of mechanisms are clearly visible. Market interaction, unlike collective decision-making on which public choice is based, does not require deliberate coordination of positions. In the market, the social nature of interaction is “encrypted” in prices, which act as impersonal signals in relation to the individual.
Collective choice involves the conscious adoption of a procedure in which individual preferences are stated and, based on their comparison, a joint decision is determined. It is clear that it largely depends on the specifics of the procedure used and, unlike the result of market transactions, is not perceived as something objectively predetermined. The procedure about which we're talking about, is always ultimately one or another order of demonstrating and taking into account individual opinions, in other words, voting.
Market interaction always leads to Pareto improvements. If a deal does not meet the interests of at least one of the parties, it will not be concluded voluntarily. A collective decision, if not made unanimously, may cause harm to those who remain in the minority (provided that the decision is binding).
An individual purchasing a product on the market is usually indifferent to the preferences of other buyers. Objectively, he is interested in ensuring that the demand of other people for the product that attracts him is as small as possible, since little market demand low price corresponds. Meanwhile, in the case of collective choice, each participant is interested in ensuring that the preferences of other individuals coincide with his own. The closer individual preferences are to each other, the easier it is to harmonize them, determining, for example, the parameters for the production of a public good.
2. Pareto optimum and unanimous decisions
A competitive market ensures the achievement of Pareto-efficient states.
In relation to collective choice, the procedure for unanimous decision-making has a similar property. Only such a procedure guarantees that some participants in the choice will not receive unilateral advantages at the expense of others.
A decision made unanimously can be implemented without the use of coercion.
Let two alternatives be considered: x and y. If all participants individually prefer the first alternative to the second, then, obviously, when making a collective decision, alternative x will receive unanimous support. If for some participants in the choice x is better than y, and for the rest, at least no worse, then there is no point in blocking the transition from y to x. In the first case, all individuals vote for x, in the second, no one uses the right of veto when choosing x.
Let us assume that x and y are different quantities of the public good to be produced. A decision must be made collectively about exactly how much the community needs. Is it possible, without additional information, to compare the two named alternatives? Obviously not, since for the participants in the choice, not only quantities are important, but also the prices (taxes) that they will have to pay for a given good. If the distribution of expenses for a public good among individuals is given, then comparison becomes possible.
However, achieving agreement between individuals does not guarantee Lindahl equilibrium. In fact, there is no reason to believe that arbitrarily given shares of total expenditures on a given good coincide with Lindahl prices for any quantity of a public good. A unanimous decision in the case under consideration only indicates that, for a given distribution of costs, one of the alternatives is better than the other for all individuals. Each distribution, generally speaking, corresponds to its own Pareto-efficient state, which is not surprising if we remember how the Pareto optimum is determined in the sphere of production, exchange and consumption of private goods.
Of course, having exhausted the possibilities of selecting the amount of a public good that is most acceptable for everyone under any distribution of expenses, you can, having fixed the quantity, try to select a different distribution of expenses, etc. Obviously, however, this makes the procedure extremely complicated.
In general, choosing a solution that would suit everyone is, as a rule, a very lengthy, labor-intensive and expensive task. This significantly limits prospects practical use procedures to which this paragraph is devoted.
Another difficulty posed by requiring unanimous approval of a decision is that those involved in the decision may have an incentive to hide their true preferences. Let the quantity of a public good to be produced be fixed, and votes cast for one or another distribution of expenditures. The individual, in principle, is satisfied with one of the options put to the vote. However, with his veto power, he blocks the adoption of this option in the hope that eventually other participants will be forced to vote on another option, according to which his payment will be reduced to a minimum, if not zero. Many participants in the choice can behave this way, which will make it ineffective, and the public good will remain unproduced.
In such a situation, the free rider problem manifests itself.
So, unanimous decision making corresponds to the idea of Pareto optimization, but the application of such a procedure is significantly difficult.
3. Optimal majority
If the decision-making power of the group is delegated to an individual member, then, obviously, there will be no need to waste time and effort in developing an agreed position. However, in this case, there is a danger that the sole deciding individual will choose the option that most suits him personally and is detrimental to other members of the group. For example, a solution may involve the creation of a public good with costs distributed in such a way that the individual does not participate at all in the costs, which are arbitrarily distributed among others. As a result, at least some group members will suffer losses; their situation will be worse than that achievable on the basis of a unanimous decision. These losses can also be considered as costs associated with a specific decision-making procedure.
The costs (time spent, etc.) incurred by the group in order to develop a collective decision are called internal. The costs of deviating utility levels from the values that would be achieved if the decision were unanimous are called externalities. The greater the proportion of votes of group members required to approve one of the options put to vote, the, with other equal conditions, higher internal costs and lower external costs.
Let's turn to Fig. 1.1. The horizontal axis shows the number of group members required to make a decision (there are N members in total in the voting group). By vertical axes C represents costs. Curve E represents external costs, which decrease as N is approached. Curve D corresponds to internal costs, which increase as the size of the subgroup that has the right to be considered decisive increases. Curve E + D reflects total costs. They're in in this case reach a minimum in a situation where K votes are required to make a decision. The optimal majority is thus K/N. With such a proportion of votes cast in support of a decision, the expected gain from finding another alternative that could be supported by another voter is exactly balanced by the additional internal costs that would be required to find and agree on this alternative.
Generally speaking, each specific group of voters and each issue put to vote has its own optimal majority.
Indeed, if the preferences of group members on a particular issue are similar to each other, then agreement is relatively easy to achieve, and the external costs are unlikely to be particularly large. If the preferences of several members of the group differ sharply from the preferences of the majority, then, on the one hand, the potential losses of utility that these several individuals will suffer if their opinions are ignored, and on the other hand, the costs of finding a solution that suits them, become decisive.
4. Simple majority rule
In practice, the most common procedure for making collective decisions involves the application of simple majority rules. According to this rule, the alternative that is supported by more than half of the participants in the choice (voting) wins. The natural question is why the same procedure is used to solve a variety of problems in very different communities. It is natural to expect that it has some property that reduces, other things being equal, the amount of internal and external costs of collective choice.
If no more than half of the votes are sufficient to make a decision, then there is a possibility of simultaneous voting for two mutually exclusive options. Thus, with an even number of voters, it is possible that half of the participants will approve one budget option, and the other half will approve another. If a simple majority is not required to make a decision, then it turns out that both options are subject to implementation. In practice, such an impasse would presumably involve negotiations between the voters to arrive at a compromise. However, if put to a vote, it could also receive approval along with another that differs from it. It is clear that if a decision is considered adopted with less than half the votes cast, the likelihood of repeated repeated (if not endless) discussions is even higher.
Thus, there is reason to believe that when moving from a rule according to which a decision is made by N12 votes (N is the number of voters), to a rule requiring approval by N / 2 + 1 votes (to a simple majority rule), there is a sudden decrease in internal costs D. Other things being equal, such a decrease entails a sharp decrease in total costs (D + E). The described advantage of the simple majority rule is all the more significant the more significant the internal costs, that is, the higher the members of the voting community estimate the cost of time and effort to achieve agreement.
So, the simple majority requirement is... minimum requirement to a decisive subgroup, which prevents the group from making mutually exclusive decisions.
More than 200 years ago, the French philosopher and mathematician J.A.N. Condorcet showed that cyclical voting can occur when simple majority rule is used.
Let us imagine that three individuals or three homogeneous groups of voters, each of which has the same number of votes, participate in making a collective decision. The subject of discussion is the expenditure of funds received into the state budget in excess of the originally planned amount. It is assumed that these funds can be spent on additional funding for one of three sectors: science (I), education (O) or culture (C). The preferences of voting individuals or groups are presented in table. 1.1. The set of preferences of all voting participants in relation to all valid alternatives is called a preference profile.
Let a pairwise comparison of alternative solution options take place based on the simple majority rule. If we start by comparing options H and O, then option N wins with the votes of the first and third subjects of choice. Further, when comparing H and K, K wins thanks to the votes of the second and third subjects. It turns out that the outcome of the collective choice is an increase in allocations for culture.
However, let us compare the winning option K with the alternative O, which was eliminated at the first step. With this comparison, O receives an advantage due to the votes of the first two subjects participating in the vote.
If you then compare O with H, N will win again, etc. The process of pairwise comparison of alternatives can be continued indefinitely, obtaining a new result at each step and cyclically repeating the alternation of outcomes. By interrupting this process, we can get any of the outcomes depending on what step we stopped at.
The result of collective choice thus turns out to be arbitrary. It is possible, however, that someone interested in the victory of one of the alternatives controls the agenda, that is, has the authority to determine the sequence of comparison of options or stop voting at one stage or another. Given the distribution of preferences under consideration, such a person is able to purposefully ensure the voting result that suits him most. The latter ends up being manipulated.
We described Paradox of voting (Condorcet's paradox), which leads to the conclusion that the simple majority rule is vulnerable. It turned out that this rule does not guarantee the transitivity of collective choice. Transitivity implies that xRy and yRz imply xRz. In our case, the preference of H over O and the preference of K over H does not imply a preference for K over O.
The requirement of transitivity seems no less natural than the four requirements that appeared in the previous paragraph. However, it is not provided by a single rule that satisfies these three requirements. Therefore, there is no collective selection procedure that satisfies all five requirements.
Of course, intransitivity (and therefore instability) of choice is not found in every preference profile. For example, let's swap places in the first row of the table. 1.1 options H and O. It is easy to see that in this case, for any sequence of comparisons, the increase in allocations for education receives stable support.
It makes sense to think about what features of preference profiles can guarantee transitive choice.
6. Nature of decisions and selection procedures
We have seen that the most common method of decision-making, a simple majority of votes, does not guarantee the achievement of a sustainable result for any profile of preferences. As has been shown, the stability of choice is facilitated by the presence of mutually opposing and balancing pairs of voters. But, obviously, a stable equilibrium is quite achievable even if the preferences of all or the majority of participants coincide. It is clear that if all voters prefer the same candidate for an elected office, then he will be elected. However, the identity of the views of the majority is quite enough, which in this case forms a strong coalition with guaranteed chances of victory. Moreover, it has been proven that the probability of cyclical voting generally decreases with increasing homogeneity of voting preferences.
The coincidence of the positions of the group of choice participants means that the alternatives under consideration do not include options in which, if chosen, some members of the group would benefit at the expense of another part. In other words, within the group the possibility of redistribution is excluded and only paths of Pareto improvements are sought. But to the extent that only Pareto improvements are involved, the choice can be made on the basis of a procedure involving unanimity. This procedure, in essence, ensures nothing more than cutting off options that would imply redistribution and making one of those decisions that corresponds to the maximum allocative efficiency.
To find a unanimous decision, the initial identity of all voters' preferences is not necessary. The procedure itself “removes from the game” those alternatives in relation to which the participants in the choice hold mutually exclusive points of view. Let's say that three friends are going on a tourist trip. Anyone can do it alone, but traveling together is cheaper. All three intend to visit cities A, B and C, but in different sequences. At the same time, the first tourist would also like to visit city D, the second - to E, and the third - to F. The decision on a joint trip must be made unanimously, since we are talking about a voluntary association of participants, and no one is able to force a dissent submit to a decision that does not find his personal approval. collective choice decision
It is likely that the benefits of traveling together will outweigh for some of the participants the inconvenience associated with violating their most preferred sequence of visiting the first three cities. In this case, the exchange of opinions will lead to the fact that a more or less satisfying route through A, B and C will be found. Having traveled along this route, the friends will most likely part ways to continue the journey alone.
We see that unanimous adoption of collective decisions is organically connected with the search for options for voluntary cooperation for the sake of more efficient use of the resources at the disposal of the participants. The requirement of unanimity is naturally complemented by the ability of voters to set aside options that are completely unacceptable to anyone and to leave the group making a collective decision when agreement cannot be reached.
Let's continue with the example and imagine now that traveling alone is for some reason impossible. Then the friends will either have to abandon the trip, or agree on some kind of rule that determines the procedure for making decisions that are binding on everyone. The rule may provide, for example, for general participation in visiting any city to which at least one of the tourists would like to go. In this case, everyone will have to take an undesirably long and expensive trip through six cities. Most likely, a simple majority rule will be adopted, and then coalitions will become decisive. Thus, the first tourist can trust the second to end the route with a visit to D and B. As a result, the third will be charged with spending time and money visiting cities that are not interesting to him. Essentially, he will have to participate in the financing of goods that are of value not to him, but to his fellow travelers. Thus, redistribution will take place. The third tourist may, in turn, try to enter into a coalition, for example, with the first to the detriment of the second, offering more favorable conditions for travel to D. This will encourage the second to look for new option coalitions, etc.
If the adoption of a collective decision does not imply unanimity, then the binding, coercive nature of this decision for all voters, both winners and losers, is of key importance. Those who are not satisfied with the group's decision do not have the opportunity to leave it. It is natural to consider procedures that do not require unanimity if we are not talking about voluntary association (allowing free refusal to participate in joint actions), but about the orderly resolution of conflicts in situations where they cannot be avoided.
A collective decision, made, for example, on the basis of a simple majority rule, does not eliminate the conflict between the interests of voters. However, it provides an opportunity for joint, purposeful action, whereas in the absence of any solution, the conflict would simply paralyze the group. In our example, no journey would take place.
The development of a procedure by which collective decisions are made non-unanimously is nothing more than an a priori determination of how to deal with conflict situations. Instead of creating a new way to resolve a separate conflict each time, general principles are formed, and this allows you to save time and effort, especially since in relation to general principles sometimes it is easier to come to an agreement.
However, conflict resolution occurs at someone else's expense. Meanwhile, the presence of losers and their desire to improve their situation is fraught with the reproduction of conflict in new form and the search, perhaps endlessly, for new options for resolving it (which, in particular, manifests itself in cyclical voting).
What happens when there is an irreconcilable conflict if, according to an a priori chosen rule, any action can only be taken on the basis of consensus? In this case, each of the voters has the right of veto, which allows them to block the adoption of new decisions. The consequence is the preservation of the status quo. In general, the larger the proportion of votes that must be gathered to approve a decision, the more likely it is that no new collective action will be taken. If, for example, a supermajority is required to approve a new law, then the likelihood of changing the law is less than when a simple majority is sufficient. So, refusal to resolve conflicts through redistribution and the desire to minimize external costs, as they were defined in paragraph 3, are fraught with a slowdown in development. This in itself is not always a bad thing. It is true, however, that without hurting anyone's interests, it is difficult to avoid stagnation.
Conflicts in economics are always ultimately related to how property rights are distributed. Obviously, decisions directly related to such a distribution cannot be general case be unanimous. Securing and protecting property rights is the most important economic function of the state. The nature of the state is closely related to the obligation and coercive nature of joint actions. Thus, although this chapter talks about collective decisions in general terms, without directly addressing the specifics of political institutions, an analysis of the differences between unanimous and non-unanimous decisions leads to an understanding of how the state operates.
To conclude this paragraph, we should conclude that different voting rules are appropriate for different problems. The requirement for unanimous decision-making allows you to focus on identifying ways to improve allocative efficiency. The use of other procedures assumes that decisions will, to one degree or another, combine elements of increasing the efficiency of redistribution, and it is possible that redistribution will come to the fore.
7. Alternative rules collective decision making
So far, only two voting rules have been discussed, which have the largest practical significance: simple majority rule and unanimous decision-making rule. In this paragraph we will get acquainted with some other procedures for recording votes. They will be described almost without comment.
All the procedures discussed here have one advantage over the simple majority rule. The latter assumes that more than half of the voters must speak in favor of the winning alternative.
In this case, an effective choice is guaranteed only if no more than two alternative options are compared and none of the voting participants abstains. When there are more than two options, successive pairwise comparisons have to be used. This procedure is commonly called the Condorcet system.
Below we talk about procedures that allow you to make a choice from several alternatives at once, at least when there are no abstentions from voting. Let us recall, however, that any of the procedures that differ from the simple majority rule does not have at least one of the properties
A. An alternative is selected that receives a relative majority, that is, more votes, compared to others. It is easy to see that when this procedure is applied, the result of a choice approved by a sufficiently large minority may be unacceptable to the majority.
B. Each voter has the right to approve (accept as acceptable) any number of alternatives from those put to vote. The winner is the alternative approved by the largest number of participants. This is the so-called approval vote.
B. If the choice is made from m alternatives, then each voter assigns rank m to his most preferred alternative, rank (m - 1) to the next most preferred, etc. Then, for each of the alternatives, the sum of the ranks assigned to it by all participants is calculated . The winner is the alternative that scores the highest amount. This procedure is called the Borda system.
D. Each voter indicates the least acceptable alternative for him. The alternative that is marked by the largest number of participants is excluded from further consideration, after which the same procedure is repeated until one alternative remains.
D. The voter chooses the alternative that is most acceptable to him. The alternative chosen by the smallest number of participants is excluded from further consideration. The procedure is repeated until one alternative is identified.
The latter procedures take into account the intensity of preferences, since alternative options are not simply compared in pairs, but are ranked, and not only the fact of approval or disapproval of a particular option is taken into account, but also its place among others. Let's say, when using the Borda system, it is recorded, for example, that a certain individual not only prefers the alternative x to the alternatives y and 2, but that x separates ten other alternatives from y, and only two from z. This, other things being equal, affects the results of choice.
8. Arrow's impossibility theorem
The variety of procedures suitable for making collective decisions prompts us to wonder whether among them there are those that would ideally correspond to a fairly complete set of natural requirements (axioms).
Familiarity with May's theorem and Condorcet's paradox makes one skeptical about this possibility. A generalized answer to the question under discussion is given by the impossibility theorem, proven by Kenneth Arrow in 1951.
The theorem states that there is no collective choice rule that simultaneously satisfies the following six requirements.
1. Completeness. The rule must provide a choice between any two alternatives, giving preference to one of them or recognizing both as equivalent.
2. Versatility. The rule provides an effective choice for any combination of individual preferences.
3. Transitivity. For any set of three alternatives x, y and z, if xRy and yRz then xRz
4. Unanimity, If xR; y is satisfied for any i, i.e. all participants in the collective choice give preference to the first of two alternatives, then xRy, in other words, the collective choice is made in favor of the first alternative (this is nothing more than the fulfillment of the Pareto optimization requirement).
5. Independence from outside alternatives. The collective choice between any two alternatives x and y depends on how individuals evaluate these two alternatives in relation to each other, but does not depend on the attitude of individuals towards any extraneous alternative z (for example, whether xRy is accepted may depend , in particular, on whether it is true that xR;y, but not on whether it is true that xR;z or that xRjzRjy).
6. Absence of a "dictator". Among the participants in collective choice there is no individual whose any preference xR,y would entail xRy regardless of the preferences of all other individuals.
The theorem can be formulated in another way by introducing the important concept of rational choice. A choice is rational if it meets the requirements of completeness and transitivity. The rationality of individual choice is one of the key axioms of microeconomics,
Collective choice is always rational, as we saw in our discussion of the voting paradox. Arrow's theorem says that there is no rule of rational collective choice that would be universal, would correspond to the principle of Pareto optimization, would be independent of extraneous alternatives, and at the same time would imply a truly collective decision that is not reduced to fixing the preferences of one individual.
In fact, constitutional restrictions on redistribution options, including the declaration of the inviolability of private property, help to weaken the significance of the problem in question. This obviously reduces the set of alternatives from which a collective choice can be made, i.e., it means abandoning the requirement of completeness.
The success of collective choice is also facilitated by the formation of communities based on preferences shared by all members. These are, for example, clubs, political parties, etc. In relation to them, the axiom of universality is insignificant. Making sustainable collective decisions in communities whose members share common values is much more achievable than in arbitrary groups of individuals.
The axiom of independence from extraneous alternatives is closely related to the refusal to take into account the intensity of individual preferences. The appropriateness of such a waiver may seem highly questionable, and, for example, the Borda rule reflects intensity, and the application of this rule does not lead to cyclical voting.
The problem, however, is that simultaneous consideration of the intensity of preferences of many individuals involves comparison and measurement of the “scales” of utility inherent in each of them. The same Borda rule is essentially a way of summing up the intensities of individual preferences.
However, the interpersonal comparability of utility scales is a very strong assumption. In any case, comparison is unthinkable without some assumptions about the relative importance of the well-being of different individuals for society. These assumptions, in principle, can be based on consensus, majority preferences, etc. However, in this case, they themselves are products of collective choice, and we are discussing here its initial conditions.
At the same time, in practice, democracies cannot do without certain explicitly or implicitly fixed ideas about the significance of the positions of individual individuals.
For example, the influence of the intensity of preferences in relation to candidates for elected positions has a different effect in the presence or absence of primary intra-party elections (what is called primaries in the United States).
Ultimately, Arrow's theorem makes it possible to understand that in the presence of divergent interests, an impeccable democratic structure of the state is hardly possible, whereas with a complete coincidence of interests, the state with its coercive power would not be required. In the next chapter we will consider how the real interests of rationally acting individuals determine political processes in a democracy.
List of used literature:
1. Atkinson E., Stiglitz J. Lectures on the economic theory of the public sector: Transl. from English M.: Aspect-press, 1995.
2. Zhiltsov E.N. Economy public sector And non-profit organizations. M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 1996.
3. Stiglitz J. Economics of the public sector: Transl. from English M.: Moscow University Publishing House: INFRA-M, 1997.
4. Yakobson L.I. Economics of the public sector. Basic theory public finance. M.: Nauka, 1995.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
The essence of management decisions, their classification. Models of decision making by multiple individuals on behalf of organizations. The nature of decisions and selection procedures. Pareto optimum and unanimous decisions. Analysis of ShockCo LLC and its product range.
course work, added 06/10/2016
Basic methods of making management decisions. Collective methods of discussion and decision making. Heuristic and quantitative methods of decision making. Analysis as an integral part of the decision-making process. Methods for analyzing management decisions.
course work, added 06/23/2010
The concept of a management decision. Classification of management decisions. Technology of making management decisions and its implementation. Decision-making structure. Distribution of decision-making powers. Risk in decision making.
thesis, added 11/06/2006
Study of the basic elements of the theory of managerial decision making. Components of the management decision-making process: goal, alternatives, outcomes, decisive rule, external conditions. Information and computer support for management decisions.
abstract, added 03/26/2011
Problems of choosing a rational management decision in unique situations. Analysis of the mechanism for making and implementing a decision, its methods and models. Decision tree for the problem of choosing a behavior strategy. Factors influencing decision making.
course work, added 07/05/2016
Concept, classification, models, goals of making management decisions. Characteristics and goals of the stages of the decision-making process, influencing factors, criteria for choosing the best solution. Features of management and decision-making process in Russian organizations.
abstract, added 03/12/2009
Specifics of administrative and managerial decisions, signs and criteria for their classification. Methods of making management decisions. Procedures and tasks of the decision implementation stage. Forms of development of management decisions. Stages of a business conversation.
course work, added 06/21/2011
Characteristics management decision, the essence of the process, procedure and mechanism for its adoption. Requirements for management technology and the most important areas of decision making. Analysis of the organization of the management decision-making process at the enterprise.
thesis, added 06/19/2011
The management system as a decision-making system, the role of decision-making in the management system. Decision-making framework and its importance for the effective functioning of departments. Improving the current decision-making scheme.
course work, added 10/26/2003
General concept and methods of making management decisions. Levels of decision making and their implementation. Basic elements of a strategic decision, assessment of its effectiveness. Requirements that apply to the manager when developing and implementing a solution.
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 the selected decision model (for example, tree diagram or mesh 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. In the process of executing the decision, assign roles as possible more group members. 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 it the 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.
From the book Infobusiness at full capacity [Doubling sales] author Parabellum Andrey Alekseevich From the book Brain. Instructions for use [How to use your capabilities to the maximum and without overload] by Rock David From the book Success with your own hands [How to bring life to new level] author Pavel VerbnyakFinding a solution As Jim Rohn wrote, to become financially independent, you must turn part of your income into capital, capital into an enterprise, enterprise into profit, profit into investment, investment into financial independence. Brian Tracy, in turn,
From the book Purchasing Guide by Dimitri Nicola From the book Psychology bad habits author O'Connor Richard From the book What to do when you don't know what to do author Herring Jonathan From the book Leading with Purpose. Give your company an incentive to believe in itself by Baldoni JohnExplaining the Decision Depending on the context of your decision, you may need to explain it to other people. Of course, if this is a personal question that is important only to you, no explanation is needed, and you can skip this section. Perhaps you would find it useful
From the book How to Influence. A new style management by Owen JoeMedical Decisions Decisions about your own health are among the most painful. We are afraid to accept them. To begin with, it may be worth emphasizing that if your health concerns you, seek medical attention. medical care necessary. Pulling back
From the book Humor as a way of influence author Sheinov Viktor Pavlovich From the book Economics for the Curious author Belyaev Mikhail Klimovich From the book Not like Tinkov author Sheitelman Mikhail From the book Thoughts, aphorisms, quotes. Business, career, management author Dushenko Konstantin Vasilievich From the book Thank you for your review. How to properly respond to feedback by Khin SheilaAll solutions have already been invented. How to come up with a solution to a client’s problem? But no way. There is no need to invent it. It is no coincidence that there is such a stable phrase as “find a solution.” The solution is not invented, it is found. They find it in the world around them, full of solutions. I couldn’t
From the book Phenomenal Intelligence. The art of thinking effectively author Sheremetyev KonstantinPage 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, participants in 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.
Collective methods (methods of organizing collective mental activity) are the most effective in terms of achieving maximum objectivity of expert assessment, since they involve the use of a wide and representative range of specialists. These methods include the following methods:
1. The “brainstorming” method is characterized by an avalanche-like promotion of new ideas without critical evaluation until an optimal solution appears.
The objective of the method is to develop the maximum number of possible solutions in an uncertain situation.
The basic principle of the method is the spontaneous development and interweaving of emerging ideas in accordance with certain rules to identify hitherto unknown possibilities for solving a problem.
Brainstorming is used primarily where the development of new concepts is required, where a logical, routine approach is not applicable. It allows you to get rid of stereotypes in solving problems and get maximum ideas in a short period of time.
The method has the following features:
– discussion of the problem takes place in a group consisting of 6-15 participants; if there are less than 6, there is a lack of people and, accordingly, a lack of ideas; in large groups, ideas are given out quickly and the participants are not able to digest them;
– participants are busy in different areas activities;
– hierarchical homogeneity of the group is preferable (with the participation of both employees and managers, stiffness and difficulties in exchanging ideas are possible);
– the problem must be clearly defined in advance and the goal precisely defined;
– an experienced leader is required;
– all thoughts and ideas must be recorded; holding a meeting and taking minutes can be carried out by one person;
– duration ranges from 40-60 minutes. When solving simple problems, 10-15 minutes;
– its results, both qualitatively and quantitatively, are many times greater than the results of regular problem-solving meetings. During the meeting, participants must adhere to the following rules:
– each participant must spontaneously and freely express all ideas that, in his opinion, can help in solving the problem. At the same time, the most incredible ideas are desirable;
– all ideas expressed can be picked up by any of the participants to give rise to new ideas and associative chains;
– it is necessary to develop as many proposals and ideas as possible. In this case, the quality of ideas does not play any role. The requirement of spontaneity partially “turns off” the filter of rationality of the participants, which usually divides thoughts into “right” and “wrong” and represses “wrong” thoughts. Through spontaneity, the subconscious is activated, from where ideas come that at first glance are in no way related to the problem, but which can actually lead to creative solutions;
– criticism, especially negative criticism, is prohibited for all participants. This principle separates idea generation from evaluation and should improve the productivity and motivation of participants.
– it is prohibited to read prepared solutions.
In general, we can say that brainstorming is widely used to solve various industrial and administrative issues. At the same time, we must not forget that situations can have different levels of complexity. Brainstorming is appropriate for solving relatively simple problems. Solving complex professional issues using this method is also possible, but to make the method more effective, it is recommended to “split” a complex problem into subtasks that will be solved sequentially.
2. The Delphi method is a sequential survey of expert opinions various areas science and technology and the formation of an array of information reflecting individual expert assessments based on both strictly logical analysis and intuitive experience. The method involves the use of a series of questionnaires, each containing information and opinions obtained from the previous questionnaire. The purpose of the method is to make an objective and accurate assessment of existing alternatives in order to make optimal and socially acceptable decisions.
Using this method, the prevailing judgment of specialists on any issue is revealed in an environment that excludes their direct debate among themselves, but at the same time allows them to periodically weigh their judgments taking into account the answers and arguments of their colleagues .
The operating algorithm of this method is briefly described as follows.
1. A group is formed (usually from experts), and these people do not communicate with each other face to face.
2. Each group member anonymously expresses thoughts regarding the problem on which a decision must be made.
3. Each group member then receives a summary report of the assumptions made.
4. Based on the received report, participants are again invited to express their thoughts.
These cycles are repeated either for a set period of time or until the summary report no longer changes, which means that each of the group members remains unconvinced.
The reason for the success of this method is the anonymity of the survey, which removes some of the tense moments that accompany face-to-face group discussion of the problem. The main criticisms against it are that it requires a lot of time and money and has no scientific basis. However, this does not prevent its successful use by many companies.
3. Discussion meeting. During the discussion meeting, the company’s working problem is discussed from different angles, and possible errors and errors are identified in a timely manner. The essence of this method is that the future project is created under the conditions of a thought experiment. During the discussion, a situation is modeled that has not yet developed.
Managers or representatives of all divisions of the company must take part in the discussion meeting. Groups can consist of either 7 participants or 30 people. The duration of the meeting is approximately two hours.
The technology for holding a discussion meeting is as follows. The leader or organizer of the discussion meeting, based on observations and assessment of the participants’ abilities, assigns each person their own role. Thus, an employee with constructive thinking is assigned the role of a speaker, an employee with critical thinking is assigned the role of a critic, etc.
The speaker prepares a message on the selected issue for 15 minutes. The critic formulates comments, identifies errors and contradictions in the content of the report. The compromiser finds constructive points both in the speaker’s proposals and in the critic’s objections. The analyst identifies the reasons and grounds for decision-making. The historian tracks the dynamics of the discussion. Asking questions helps develop the discussion in more detail.
As with a brainstorming session, a staff member is present at the discussion meeting and jots down important points on a whiteboard or flip chart.
A discussion meeting is usually held to analyze large-scale problems when it is necessary to calculate possible risks.
It is worth noting that if during a brainstorming session a ban on criticism is introduced to create a free, creative atmosphere, then during a discussion meeting, on the contrary, criticism is stimulated in order to identify risks and reduce or completely eliminate their negative consequences.
4. The method of constructing scenarios is as follows: the group sets out motivated options possible development situations that are the result of coordination of individual scenarios or scenarios developed in relation to dominant factors. This method attempts to establish a logical sequence of events to show how, starting from the existing situation, a future state can unfold step by step. The method is characterized by the following criteria:
– the script must be drawn up by highly qualified specialists of the required profiles and different levels of the hierarchical administrative ladder;
– the value of the scenario is higher, the lower the degree of uncertainty, i.e. the greater the degree of agreement between expert opinions on the feasibility of an event, system, etc.;
– the scenario should be written in such a way that, after reading it, the general goal of the work being carried out becomes clear in the light of political, ideological and economic objectives for the forecast period.
– the finished script must be analyzed.
5. Japanese ring decision-making system “kingisho”, the essence of which is that a draft innovation is being prepared for consideration. It is given for discussion to persons on a list compiled by the manager. Everyone must review the proposed solution and provide their comments in writing. After this, a meeting is held. As a rule, those specialists are invited whose opinion is not entirely clear to the manager. Experts choose their solution according to individual preferences. And if they do not coincide, then a preference vector arises, which is determined using one of the following principles:
The dictator principle - the opinion of one person in the group is taken as a basis. This principle is typical for military organizations, as well as for decision-making in emergency circumstances;
Cournot principle - used in the case when there are no coalitions, i.e. when the number of solutions equal to the number of experts is proposed. In this case, it is necessary to find a solution that would meet the requirement of individual rationality without infringing on the interests of each individual;
Pareto principle - used in decision making when all experts form a single whole, one coalition. In this case, the optimal solution will be one that is unprofitable for all members of the group to change at once, since it unites them in achieving a common goal;
The Edgeworth principle is used if a group consists of several coalitions, each of which does not benefit from changing its decision. Knowing the preferences of coalitions, one can make the optimal decision without harming each other.
6. Commission method - involves regular meetings of experts to conduct open group discussions on the problem under discussion and develop an agreed solution during such discussions.
Advantages:
It is possible to increase the awareness of experts by discussing the rationale for expert assessments;
This method, when used skillfully, contributes to the creation of a creative atmosphere in a group of experts and the development of solution alternatives.
Flaws:
Lack of anonymity, which can lead to quite strong manifestations of conformity on the part of experts who join the opinion of more competent or authoritative specialists even if they have an opposing point of view of their own.
The discussion often comes down to polemics between the most authoritative experts.
Another significant negative factor is the varying activity of experts, which is not always related to their competence.
In addition, the publicity of statements may lead to the reluctance of some experts to abandon a previously expressed opinion, even if it has changed during the discussion.
To summarize, it is important to note that each method is good in a certain situation. Which one to use specifically depends on the nature of the problem being solved, on the personal characteristics of the group members, and on the time allocated to solve the problem.
This is the result of joint intellectual work of a group of people. Such decisions are made taking into account the interests and positions of all group members. The undoubted advantage of collective decisions compared to individual ones is more high quality and validity, since a much larger amount of information is used for their development. However, the process of making collective decisions takes a long time and requires relatively large expenditures of other resources. Therefore, when choosing a form of making a management decision - individual or collective - it is always necessary to seek a compromise between the quality of this decision and the cost of resources for its adoption.
Two types - individual and collective decisions, which represent only two “poles” of decisions and do not allow us to identify more subtle differences between the decisions that are made in organizations. In order to better understand the structure and interaction of management decision-making processes, it is necessary to identify more clear and specific types of decisions located between the indicated “poles”. This can be done on the basis of one of the modern theories - the structural-level concept of management decisions.
Finally, management decisions are divided into types depending on the field of activity of the organization for which they are adopted. For example, on this basis we can distinguish production decisions (choice of production technology), marketing decisions (choice of a market segment), financial decisions (choice of the optimal portfolio valuable papers), personnel decisions (selection and placement) and many others.
The listed types do not exhaust the entire variety of management decisions. In fact, it is almost impossible to attribute a particular solution to one of the indicated “pure” types. In reality, all decisions made in organizations are combined, i.e. are within a certain range or continuum located between the “extreme” types of solutions. For example, only a few management decisions turn out to be programmed or unprogrammed in their pure form. Any programmed decision does not completely exclude the personal initiative of the manager, who can deviate from the standard methodology if he considers it necessary. On the other hand, even in the most difficult situations emerging for the first time, standard methods and selection rules that were previously used may be useful.
