Decision Making: Individual vs. Group

Judgment in Managerial Decision Making

The expressions 'too many cooks spoil the broth', and 'two heads are better than one', and such arguments as 'it is impossible to accomplish anything in a meeting because everyone has their own agenda,' symbolize only too well, the heat/controversy surrounding the individual vs. group decision making debate. Decision-making is a key component of management and one of the central activities of any implementation procedure. It ought, therefore, to be taken seriously by every organization, regardless of its size and structure.

Studies have shown "that whether an individual or group should make decisions depends on the type of task involved" (Nelson & Quick, 2012). To this end, it becomes apparent that group decision making is better-suited to the performance of tasks that either require new ideas to be generated or that call for the evaluation of situations of a highly uncertain nature (Band & Partridge, 2001). In contrast, individual decisions have the edge when a "task involves the implementation of pre-designed plans, rules, or instructions" (Band & Partridge, 2001, p.98). Other instances that would favor individual decision making include; i) when a decision has to be made urgently, ii) when a decision is entirely based upon the unique skill of one particular specialist, iii) when confidentiality is key, and any divulgence of information could impact negatively on the organization, and iv) when an individual has a responsibility to make the final decision - for instance, a departmental head, or chief executive officer (Band & Partridge, 2001).

Despite the apparent role-division between the two forms of decision making, empirical research indicates that group decision making outperforms individual effort, and yields solutions that are of higher quality than the average of individual solutions (Bazerman & Don, 2008). On the other hand, a number of studies have found that an experienced, committed solitary worker would outperform a group that brings together people of diverse personalities who are incapable of reaching consensus (Band & Partridge, 2001).

Perhaps the best way to examine the suitability of each technique is to outline the advantages and disadvantages of both, as has been done in the subsequent sections of this text.

Group Decision Making: it benefits from two fundamental advantages; information-sharing, and synergy (Nelson & Quick, 2012). Synergy derives from the idea that some outcomes are best achieved if multiple minds are brought to bear on certain processes of decision-making (Bazerman & Don, 2008). To this end, synergy can be likened to economies of scope, whereby the quality of decisions reached goes up with the inclusion of more minds (Nelson & Quick, 2012). Information-sharing is based on the idea that every individual possesses some unique information besides that which is known by everyone (Nelson & Quick, 2012). When several individuals come together in a group, they consolidate these unique pieces of information, creating a more complete informational platform and consequently, a decision of high quality (Nelson & Quick, 2012).

Group decision making is not without its share of drawbacks; i) since the technique is built on consultations, it usually involves lengthy procedures that could be quite costly to the organization, ii) it could kill team spirit, especially if some members feel that they are being shortchanged, iii) decisions are largely influenced by members' relative statuses - in an academic group task, for instance, members could adopt an option just because it has been voiced by the smartest member and, iii) groupthink could develop, especially if effective consensus-determination conditions have not been established (Nelson & Quick, 2012).