Group Decision Making Case Study

Leadership: Group Decision-Making Case Paper

Companies rely on rational decision-making so stakeholders can take intelligent steps for profitability and value creation. With globalization on the rise, working individually is no more an option, and collaboration across business units asks for group decision-making (Hsieh et al., 2020). This paper explains the suitability of brainstorming, nominal group technique, and Delphi technique for group decision-making and their respective application to the given cases.

Case 1

Since the top management is often prone to conventional thinking, which could be a risk for the company as old methods are no longer feasible for retaining customers, the nominal group technique (NGT) would be suitable for this scenario. Top management members are extroverts, so they would be willing to speak in an open face-to-face meeting. However, NGT does not allow the other group members to fall victim to the pressures of high-status group members (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018; Sims, 2002, p. 208). They are free to put forward their ideas without hesitation, to which top management would have to listen. NGT would enable free conversations with an inflow of ideas needed to keep the customers with the company and shun old techniques that are no longer working to retain them. Top management would have no option but to listen to fresh perspectives without imposing pressure. Ultimately, the final ranking would suggest the best solution to this problem that must be pursued immediately before the target market is lured away by the competitors.

Case 2

Brainstorming could be the best group technique for this case since everyone has the right to contribute to the decision-making process without fearing punishment or criticism. Rewards are also abstained so that everyone participates without thinking about the positives or negatives (Mindtools, n.d.). Also, brainstorming allows everyone to speak without considering whether their input would be valued. This lets introverts speak as well. A group facilitator could be appointed to ensure everyone gets the chance to speak up, even the silent ones. Also, the group facilitator would guarantee that one idea is discussed at a time and straying from the topic is avoided (Mindtools, n.d).

Further, it would help to make decisions quickly as the time is less and the final answer is needed promptly. This would prevent the group discussions from drifting into tangential subjects. The facilitator would keep noting the ideas coming from all sides, especially those that could be valuable to the problem of cost-cutting.

Case 3

The Delphi technique would be best for this scenario since the decision does not need to be made urgently. Delphi technique infuses sending letters or questionnaires to the involved group members and takes their opinion in the form of inputs that they generated based on their understanding and experience (Sims, 2002, p. 207). They independently give their creative ideas without sticking to the conventional face-to-face meeting. The letters could be shared with other group members and mailed to them for a second review to gain a consensus over the best possible solution (Haughey, 2021). Since the opinions remain anonymous, the participants do not have to worry about where the input comes from. They express their ideas freely and could even mention errors if there are found nay in someone’s recommendations or inputs earlier.

Further, if the emails are making rounds among experts from different departments, such as finance, marketing, and H.R., the expert from every field would give their opinions so that the inputs from the others could rectify the lack in one department. The idea is to remain focused on the presented solutions rather than who gave them. Reactions are shared repeatedly to reach a final decision without time constraints and limitations of geographical boundaries. The Internet has solved most of the time restraints, adding to the facilitation of emailing the responses quickly for everyone to have a look.

Conclusion

The most suitable decision-making technique is brainstorming, which is quick and involves an informal conversational style. It lets employees of any hierarchy come forward and participate in the creative process (AlMutairi, 2015). It not only instigation ‘inclusion’ and instills a sense of belonging within the employees but also motivates them to give a spark to their innovative ideas. Their normal ways of thinking are rejuvenated as they are triggered to think in different directions that they might not be able to do while sitting alone. For example, if I am at a brainstorming meeting, I would hear an idea from one person and build onto it to produce a better idea. Another person would further develop my idea, and the process would continue. This evolution is productive and does not define limitations to one’s thinking. Besides, since it happens informally and casually and we do not have to worry about top management’s reactions, with the sometimes inclusion of game activities for enhanced ideas, the conventional approaches are disregarded for greater contribution.

However, considering the circumstances in which we are involved, sometimes individual brainstorming is encouraged. It is when we have to come up with new ideas individually without thinking of the criticism from everyone else. Still, considering its limitation of not having the opportunity to build on the ideas of others and just living without our circle of thoughts, no matter how progressive they are, group brainstorming is deemed beneficial. We hold these sessions more by preparing the group for the session. Our top management asks us to come prepared for the issue to be discussed in the meeting. Emails are already sent announcing the problems that need solutions for making the required preparations. The number of people attending the brainstorming session is limited, even if it has to be scheduled again with more people. The restriction of people attending the session is kept to keep the brainstorming productive rather than making it noisy and creating disturbance for everyone who might not be able to hear everyone’s ideas with attention.