The Fundamentals of Group Decision Making

Few truly important decisions are made solely by individuals. As a professional, you will often be tasked with finding a solution or planning a communicative response in a small group setting, drawing upon the strengths of each group members to make better decisions. For decades we have understood that the best decisions are made by groups that are well-informed and evaluate many possible solutions. Thus, the principles of the small group decision-making model emerged. There are seven steps involved in the decision-making model:

Although the small group problem-solving model on its face seems fairly straightforward, anyone who has ever worked in a group knows that group dynamics and individual personalities and preferences play an important role in every group decision-making situation. So how do ethics come into play?

Ethical decisions need to be made at almost every step of the decision making process. When identifying the nature of a decision, for example, how a decision is defined focuses decision-makers’ attention. A decision about how to deal with an organizational crisis, for example, such as a manager or leader who has behaved badly (engaged in harassment, mislead shareholders, spied on employees—all actual situations), will be resolved differently depending upon how the situation is defined. An absolutist might see the decision as revolving around how to punish the errant manager, while a situationalist might see the decision as revolving around how best to deal with the media and the organization’s reputation.

Every issue can be described in a number of ways, depending upon how someone defines the problem. Consider step two, “gathering relevant information.” An important ethical consideration is to determine what counts as “relevant” data. For example, one thing many organizations have done recently is to use social media and other online sources as a means of vetting potential employees; indeed, some highly competitive universities actually look at the social media pages of potential students as a means of determining suitability for admission. Ethical considerations permeate this issue. Is every source of personal information suitable for examination? Manager’s positions on the use of social media sources varies widely, and each individual’s ethical orientation necessarily influences how s/he sees the world. A communitarian might argue that admitting a student who does not share the same values as the other members of the community would be harmful to the group, and thus justify examining ideological information present in a potential students social media. Conversely, someone else night argue that everyone deserves a fair shake (reciprocity) and should not be penalized for holding different views.

The outcome of smaller decisions, such as those described above, is not trivial. Big decisions are informed by a series of smaller, and often ethically charged decisions. No decision or policy is entirely value free or neutral. Thus, group decision-making involves many levels of individual and stakeholder considerations. By understanding the ethical frameworks that guide how other people make their own decisions, you will have more success at achieving your own goals. A brief discussion of some of the variables that influence how people make decisions should help explain the complexities of the process.