Team members’ direct participation in decision-making processes and the quality of decisions

IF 2.3 Q3 BUSINESS
Ryszard Rutka, Piotr Wróbel, Ewa Wycinka
{"title":"Team members’ direct participation in decision-making processes and the quality of decisions","authors":"Ryszard Rutka, Piotr Wróbel, Ewa Wycinka","doi":"10.7341/20231935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE: Do teams manage to reach better decisions than those made by individuals? Numerous studies have delivered inconclusive results. Meanwhile, participation in decision-making can take various forms and is not limited to consensus group decisions, and the influence of the various forms of participation on the quality of decisions has been less frequently examined. The aim of the research was to determine the effect on decision quality of changing the form of direct participation in the decision-making process in the case of complex, multi-stage problems. METHODOLOGY: The article presents the results of a long-term experiment in which 598 teams of 2,673 people took part. The participants were asked to solve a decision problem using three decision-making styles: autocratic, consultative, and group. The participants played the role of members of a newly established project team that must plan its own work. The task concerned a problem that requires the analysis of a number of dependencies between sub-problems, in contrast to eureka-type problems. The decision problem was new to the participants, making it impossible to apply known solutions; a creative approach was therefore required. The decision was then compared with the optimal solution established by experts. Decision quality was based on the deviation of the proposed solution from the optimal solution. FINDINGS: The results of the experiment confirm the significant synergistic potential of increasing direct participation in decision-making for complex, multi-stage problems. A significant proportion of teams made better decisions as a result of increasing direct participation – replacing autocratic decisions with consultative and group decisions. The quality of consultative decisions was roughly in the middle of autocratic and group decisions. By using group decision-making, teams made better decisions than the average individual decision and came closer to the decision quality achieved by the best team members. This effect was universal, observed both in the strongest and weakest teams. It should be remembered that, while group decision-making has the potential for synergy, it is not always achieved. Group decision-making markedly reduced the risk of making highly misguided decisions, and it can be reasoned that direct participation protects against serious mistakes more than it guarantees the best possible results. IMPLICATIONS: Team leaders should be familiar with different decision-making styles, their advantages and disadvantages, and the scope of their application. This research suggests that increasing team members’ participation to a consultative role and even better, a full participatory role, increases the quality of the decision. With the growing complexity of organizations that have to deal with accelerating change, technology development and increased competition, creating structures that can flexibly respond to the challenges of the environment requires the participation of team members at all managerial levels. The use of consultative and group decision-making styles for complex and multi-stage problems supports this process. The group decision-making style can bring better quality, but it has its limitations and it is not always possible to use it. It requires a team of highly competent people who identify themselves with the interests of the organization. Otherwise, the consultative form will bring better results. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: For the first time, an empirical study analyses the case of consultative decision-making, in which the team leader consults the individual opinions independently to finally come up with a final “team” decision. This approach is widely used by team leaders and managers in the field. This study shows that this approach constitutes an improvement over the individual (autocratic) one but still falls short of the group decision-making approach. Finally, this study which has been done with the largest number of participant teams (598 teams, 2,673 individuals), professionally active post-graduate students and over a 24-year period allows a sound statistical confirmation of the proposed decision quality improvement when moving from individual to consultative and group decision-making styles.","PeriodicalId":44596,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7341/20231935","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PURPOSE: Do teams manage to reach better decisions than those made by individuals? Numerous studies have delivered inconclusive results. Meanwhile, participation in decision-making can take various forms and is not limited to consensus group decisions, and the influence of the various forms of participation on the quality of decisions has been less frequently examined. The aim of the research was to determine the effect on decision quality of changing the form of direct participation in the decision-making process in the case of complex, multi-stage problems. METHODOLOGY: The article presents the results of a long-term experiment in which 598 teams of 2,673 people took part. The participants were asked to solve a decision problem using three decision-making styles: autocratic, consultative, and group. The participants played the role of members of a newly established project team that must plan its own work. The task concerned a problem that requires the analysis of a number of dependencies between sub-problems, in contrast to eureka-type problems. The decision problem was new to the participants, making it impossible to apply known solutions; a creative approach was therefore required. The decision was then compared with the optimal solution established by experts. Decision quality was based on the deviation of the proposed solution from the optimal solution. FINDINGS: The results of the experiment confirm the significant synergistic potential of increasing direct participation in decision-making for complex, multi-stage problems. A significant proportion of teams made better decisions as a result of increasing direct participation – replacing autocratic decisions with consultative and group decisions. The quality of consultative decisions was roughly in the middle of autocratic and group decisions. By using group decision-making, teams made better decisions than the average individual decision and came closer to the decision quality achieved by the best team members. This effect was universal, observed both in the strongest and weakest teams. It should be remembered that, while group decision-making has the potential for synergy, it is not always achieved. Group decision-making markedly reduced the risk of making highly misguided decisions, and it can be reasoned that direct participation protects against serious mistakes more than it guarantees the best possible results. IMPLICATIONS: Team leaders should be familiar with different decision-making styles, their advantages and disadvantages, and the scope of their application. This research suggests that increasing team members’ participation to a consultative role and even better, a full participatory role, increases the quality of the decision. With the growing complexity of organizations that have to deal with accelerating change, technology development and increased competition, creating structures that can flexibly respond to the challenges of the environment requires the participation of team members at all managerial levels. The use of consultative and group decision-making styles for complex and multi-stage problems supports this process. The group decision-making style can bring better quality, but it has its limitations and it is not always possible to use it. It requires a team of highly competent people who identify themselves with the interests of the organization. Otherwise, the consultative form will bring better results. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: For the first time, an empirical study analyses the case of consultative decision-making, in which the team leader consults the individual opinions independently to finally come up with a final “team” decision. This approach is widely used by team leaders and managers in the field. This study shows that this approach constitutes an improvement over the individual (autocratic) one but still falls short of the group decision-making approach. Finally, this study which has been done with the largest number of participant teams (598 teams, 2,673 individuals), professionally active post-graduate students and over a 24-year period allows a sound statistical confirmation of the proposed decision quality improvement when moving from individual to consultative and group decision-making styles.
团队成员在决策过程中的直接参与和决策的质量
目的:团队是否能比个人做出更好的决策?许多研究都给出了不确定的结果。同时,参与决策可以采取多种形式,并不局限于协商一致的群体决策,而各种形式的参与对决策质量的影响却很少得到审查。本研究的目的是确定在复杂、多阶段问题的情况下,改变直接参与决策过程的形式对决策质量的影响。方法:本文介绍了一项长期实验的结果,其中598个团队的2,673人参加了实验。参与者被要求用三种决策方式来解决一个决策问题:独裁式、协商式和团队式。参与者扮演新成立的项目团队成员的角色,该团队必须计划自己的工作。该任务涉及的问题需要分析子问题之间的许多依赖关系,而不是尤里卡类型的问题。决策问题对参与者来说是新的,因此不可能应用已知的解决方案;因此需要一种创造性的办法。然后将该决策与专家确定的最优解进行比较。决策质量是基于提出的解决方案与最优解决方案的偏差。研究结果:实验结果证实了在复杂、多阶段问题的决策中增加直接参与的显著协同潜力。由于直接参与的增加,很大一部分团队做出了更好的决策——用协商和集体决策取代专制决策。协商决策的质量大致处于专制决策和群体决策之间。通过使用群体决策,团队做出的决策比一般的个人决策更好,更接近于最佳团队成员所达到的决策质量。这种效应是普遍存在的,在最强和最弱的团队中都能观察到。应当记住,虽然群体决策具有协同作用的潜力,但并不总是能够实现。集体决策显著降低了做出高度错误决策的风险,而且可以推断,直接参与可以避免严重错误,而不是保证可能的最佳结果。启示:团队领导应该熟悉不同的决策风格,它们的优缺点,以及它们的适用范围。这项研究表明,增加团队成员的参与,使其成为一个咨询角色,甚至更好,成为一个充分参与的角色,可以提高决策的质量。随着组织日益复杂,必须应对加速变化、技术发展和日益激烈的竞争,创建能够灵活应对环境挑战的结构需要所有管理级别的团队成员的参与。对复杂和多阶段问题采用协商和小组决策方式支持这一进程。群体决策方式可以带来更好的质量,但它也有其局限性,并不是总是可以使用的。它需要一个由高度胜任的人组成的团队,这些人认同组织的利益。否则,咨询形式会带来更好的效果。独创性与价值:实证研究首次分析了协商决策的案例,即团队领导独立地咨询个人意见,最终得出最终的“团队”决策。这种方法被该领域的团队领导和管理人员广泛使用。本研究表明,这种方法比个人(专制)决策方法有所改进,但仍低于群体决策方法。最后,这项研究已经完成了最大数量的参与者团队(598个团队,2,673个人),专业活跃的研究生和超过24年的时间,允许一个健全的统计确认,当从个人转向咨询和群体决策风格时,建议的决策质量改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
20
审稿时长
48 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信