By following such an iterative process teams can counter biases and resist groupthink. Then ask the group to assess the proposed ideas, again independently and anonymously, without assigning any of the suggestions to particular team members. You can ask team members to record their ideas independently and anonymously in a shared document, for example. To get the most out of your team’s diverse capabilities, we recommend gathering opinions individually before people share their thoughts within the wider group. The collective knowledge of a group is only an advantage if it’s used properly. For larger groups with seven or more members, appoint at least two devil’s advocates to be sure that a sole strategic dissenter isn’t isolated by the rest of the group as a disruptive troublemaker.Ĭollect opinions independently. Research shows that empowering at least one person with the right to challenge the team’s decision making process can lead to significant improvements in decision quality and outcomes. One way to counter undesirable groupthink tendencies in teams is to appoint a “ devil’s advocate.” This person is tasked with acting as a counterforce to the group’s consensus. As a leader, you need first to understand the nature of the decision you’re asking the group to make before you assemble a suitable team.Īppoint a strategic dissenter (or even two). But in repetitive tasks, requiring convergent thinking in structured environments, such as adhering to safety procedures in flying or healthcare, homogenous groups often do better. When trying to complete complex tasks that require diverse skills and perspectives, such as conducting research and designing processes, heterogeneous groups may substantially outperform homogeneous ones. Teams that have potentially opposing points of view can more effectively counter biases. Various studies have found that groups consisting of individuals with homogeneous opinions and beliefs have a greater tendency toward biased decision making. By keeping the group to between three and five people, a size that people naturally gravitate toward when interacting, you can reduce these negative effects while still benefitting from multiple perspectives.Ĭhoose a heterogenous group over a homogenous one (most of the time). The larger the group, the greater the tendency for its members to research and evaluate information in a way that is consistent with pre-existing information and beliefs. For example, research shows that groups with seven or more members are more susceptible to confirmation bias. Large groups are much more likely to make biased decisions. Keep the group small when you need to make an important decision. Based on behavioral and decision science research and years of application experience, we have identified seven simple strategies for more effective group decision making: This doesn’t mean that groups shouldn’t make decisions together, but you do need to create the right process for doing so. And most of these processes occur subconsciously. Individual biases can easily spread across the group and lead to outcomes far outside individual preferences. Misconceived expert opinions can quickly distort a group decision. Because of an over-reliance on hierarchy, an instinct to prevent dissent, and a desire to preserve harmony, many groups fall into groupthink. Larger pools of knowledge are by no means a guarantee of better outcomes. After all, more minds are better than one, right? Not necessarily. Poor decision making is associated with an increased risk of mortality in old age even after accounting for cognitive function.When you have a tough business problem to solve, you likely bring it to a group. Further, the association of decision making with mortality persisted after adjustment for the level of cognitive function. Thus, a person who performed poorly on the measure of decision making (score = 3, 10th percentile) was about 4 times more likely to die compared to a person who performed well (score = 11, 90th percentile). In a proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex and education, the risk of mortality increased by about 20% for each additional decision making error (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.07-1.32, p = 0.002). During up to 4 years of follow-up (mean = 1.7 years), 40 (6% of 675) persons died. The mean score on the decision making measure at baseline was 7.1 (SD = 2.9, range: 0-12), with lower scores indicating poorer decision making. Baseline assessments of decision making were used to predict the risk of mortality during up to 4 years of follow-up. Participants were 675 older persons without dementia from the Rush Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal cohort study of aging. Decision making is thought to be an important determinant of health and well-being across the lifespan, but little is known about the association of decision making with mortality.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |