Team Decision Making -- Pitfalls and Solutions Anyone who has ever been a member of any type of team can likely readily testify concerning the difficulties involved in reaching a consensus on even minor and straightforward issues such as seating arrangements, so it will likely come as no surprise to modern practitioners that the team decision-making process is fraught with a wide array of pitfalls, some of which can cause a team to fail outright while others can result in suboptimal outcomes. Therefore, identifying solutions to commonly encountered pitfalls in the team decision-making process represents a timely and valuable enterprise. To this end, this paper reviews the relevant literature concerning the team decision-making process in general and some of the common types of pitfalls that can reasonably be expected to be encountered in any organizational setting. Finally, a discussion concerning the manner in which the difficulties involved in the team decision-making process have been further exacerbated by today's diverse, multicultural teams is followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues in the paper's conclusion

Review and Discussion

The Team Decision-Making Process in General

There is a growing body of evidence that the decisions that are made by teams generally result in organizational performance gain compared to decisions made by individuals acting alone (Bedard & Maroney, 2009). Nevertheless, creating and sustaining an effective team decision-making process requires a fundamentl understanding of the team's goal, its principals and their relationship, as well as the other variables that comprise the team's purpose throughout its existence. Although every team is unique, there are some common approaches that are used by teams to make decisions today, including the following:

An individual on the team can make the decision based on his/her own information (commonly termed "a command decision").

An individual on the team can make the decision based on input from other team members (commonly termed "a consultative decision");

The team can vote and base the decision on the majority;

The team can work together to decide on an option that everyone can support and this is the most common team decision (commonly termed a "consensus decision"; and,

The team can get everyone to agree on one option so they have unanimous agreement (Kessler, 1995, p. 38).

Clearly, although the fundamental outcome of the team decision-making making process will depend on which approach is used, the share the commonality of actually reaching some type of decision, even if it is suboptimal or outright wrong. Therefore, the key to achieving optimal outcomes using any of the foregoing decision-making approaches is for teams to move through the respective steps involved in each approach to achieve some degree of consensus in the most efficient fashion possible while ensuring that informed and rationale decisions are achieved that satisfy all team members to the maximum extent possible.

Certainly, achieving consensus can represent the most daunting aspect of the team decision-making process, but by ensuring that comprises are made when necessary, all team members can contribute to ensuring that a satisfactory decision is achieved. Moreover, achieving a consensus in an amiable and cooperative fashion is in the best interests of all team members, irrespective of their personal views. In this regard, Kessler emphasizes that, "Teams generally strive for consensus decisions so that the decision is accepted and supported by all team members" (1995, p. 38).

An important point made by Kessler (1995) is that to the extent that team reach decisions that are supported by all team members, particular when there are highly technical issues involved, will likely be the extent to which decision is the right one -- an outcome that is also in the best interests of all of the team members. For instance, Kessler concludes that, "When this happens, the likelihood of reaching the best technical decision is maximized, justifying the time required. This is true for decisions which will have a significant effect on the entire team" (p. 39). Despite the desirability of developing optimal decisions, the team decision-making process is replete with pitfalls that can derail even the best managed teams, and these issues are discussed further below.

Pitfalls in the Team Decision-Making Process

As noted above, teams have a variety of decision-making models available, but there are some pitfalls that are common to all teams that should be taken into account from the outset. For example, so-called "groupthink" can cause teams to reach decisions they might not otherwise reach if the individuals team members contributed their real thoughts and views on an issue rather than conceding the "the wisdom of the crowd." In this regard, Petty (2010) points out that, "Groupthink is one of the nefarious...

1).
Moreover, in their efforts to avoid confrontation (discussed further below) or reach some type of consensus so they can move on to other things, some team members may simply agree with the majority despite serious personal and professional reservations about the decision. Fortunately, there are some steps that team leaders can take to mitigate the effects of groupthink on the team's decision-making process, including those recommended by Petty (2010) below:

1. Anticipate Groupthink in the Risk Plan. Because it is commonplace, planning for this eventuality can help mitigate its impact when it occurs.

2. Limit the typical team size to less than 10 members and ensure that there are well-defined boundaries for inclusion. Porous team boundaries and widespread casual involvement on teams breeds dysfunction, including pressure towards consensus for the wrong reasons.

3. Invite external perspectives at various stages of the process and ensure that procedures are in place to protect external viewpoints and identify ways to incorporate them into the team's thinking and plans.

4. Lengthen the discussion phase. Despite the need to reach a consensus in a cost-effective fashion, it is also important to allow team members and external authorities to provide their feedback and to take this feedback into consideration (Petty recommends the "Six Hats Thinking" method to facilitate collaboration among team members).

5. Develop a "Plan B." Because the potential for top management to reject a team's recommended decision, an alternative, fully supportable solution should also be developed concomitantly.

6. Include a "Devil's Advocate" in the decision-making process. This may or may not be a full-time team membership role, but Petty recommends including this role to ensure that groupthink is not allowed to erode the quality of the decision-making process by verbalizing the negative aspects of proposed solutions.

While these steps can help mitigate the impact of groupthink on the team decision-making process, other common pitfalls that face team leaders today include the problems that are commonly associated with so-called "virtual teams" where members rarely or never actually meet face-to-face but rather must rely on telecommunications technologies for collaboration and decision making (Brandt & England, 2009). For example, Brandt and England (2009) emphasize that as the world's commerce becomes increasingly globalized, the importance of the decision-making process in virtual teams has become far more important than even in the recent past. In this regard, Brandt and England conclude that, "The ability to assemble flexible and effective virtual teams is becoming essential. In the purest terms, virtual teams are individuals working together who have never met each other in person and probably will not meet face-to-face during the assigned project" (2009, p. 63).

Finally, another common pitfall encountered in many team-making decision situations is the fact that studies have shown that most teams are better are generating relevant information than they are at evaluating it, and the failure of many teams involves not in identifying the best solution, but in failing to select it as their ultimate decision (Bedard & Maroney, 2009). These findings underscore the need for teams to develop alternative viable solutions in their decision-making process, a process that can become even far more challenging when the team membership is culturally diverse as discussed below.

Impact of Cultural Diversity on the Team Decision-Making Process

Like many other Western nations today, the population in the United States is becoming highly heterogeneous and continues to change the demographic composition of the nation. As a result, growing numbers of business practitioners recognize the importance of cross-cultural competencies but far too many still tend to rely on cultural stereotypes rather than the characteristics of the individuals involved. For instance, despite a growing body of research on topic, Meyer (2014) emphasizes that, "It's all too common to rely on cliches, stereotyping people from different cultures on just one or two dimensions -- the Japanese are hierarchical, for example, or the French communicate in subtle ways" (para. 2). As a result, this overreliance on stereotypes and cliches can have serious implications for teams when the membership is culturally diverse. In this regard, Congden and Matveev (2009) point out that, "Researchers have documented that the successful performance of multicultural teams is a vital and contributing factor to organizational success" (p. 73).

Because conflict is an inevitable part of organizational life in general and within teams in particular, it is therefore important for team leaders to effectively management these cultural differences in…