This paper examines three major group decision-making techniques — brainstorming, the nominal group technique (NGT), and the Delphi technique — and applies each to a distinct organizational scenario. Case 1 demonstrates why NGT is best suited for settings where status hierarchies may suppress open dialogue. Case 2 illustrates brainstorming's value when speed and inclusive participation are priorities. Case 3 shows how the Delphi technique supports deliberate, anonymous consensus-building across departments without geographic constraints. The conclusion reflects on brainstorming as the author's preferred technique, detailing how structured sessions, facilitation strategies, and voting mechanisms make it effective for fast, collaborative problem-solving in organizational settings.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper demonstrates applied comparative analysis — it does not merely describe three techniques but evaluates the fit between each method's properties (anonymity, speed, structure, inclusivity) and the specific constraints of each case scenario. This method-to-context matching is a core skill in organizational behavior writing.
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then proceeds through three numbered case analyses, each devoted to one decision-making technique. The conclusion pivots to personal and organizational reflection, detailing session logistics such as preparation, time limits, turn-taking, and voting. References follow APA format. This clean case-by-case structure makes the argument easy to follow and evaluate.
Companies rely on rational decision-making so that stakeholders can take intelligent steps toward profitability and value creation. With globalization on the rise, working individually is no longer an option, and collaboration across business units demands effective group decision-making (Hsieh et al., 2020). This paper explains the suitability of brainstorming, the nominal group technique, and the Delphi technique for group decision-making and their respective application to three organizational cases.
Since top management is often prone to conventional thinking — which could be a risk for the company as old methods are no longer effective for retaining customers — the nominal group technique (NGT) would be suitable for this scenario. Top management members tend to be extroverts and are therefore willing to speak in an open, face-to-face meeting. However, NGT does not allow other group members to fall victim to the pressures of high-status individuals (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018; Sims, 2002, p. 208). Participants are free to put forward their ideas without hesitation, and top management must listen rather than dominate the discussion.
NGT enables free conversation with an inflow of ideas needed to retain customers and move away from techniques that are no longer working. Top management has no option but to consider fresh perspectives without imposing pressure. Ultimately, the final ranking produced by the process suggests the best solution to pursue before the target market is drawn away by competitors.
Brainstorming could be the best group technique for this case, since everyone has the right to contribute to the decision-making process without fear of punishment or criticism. Rewards are also withheld so that everyone participates without calculating personal gain (Mindtools, n.d.). Brainstorming allows everyone to speak without wondering whether their input will be valued, which encourages introverts to participate as well. A group facilitator can be appointed to ensure that every participant — including the quieter ones — gets the chance to speak. The facilitator also ensures that one idea is discussed at a time and that the conversation does not stray from the topic (Mindtools, n.d.).
This approach helps the group reach decisions quickly when time is limited and a prompt answer is needed. The facilitator continuously records ideas from all sides, particularly those that could be valuable to the problem of cost-cutting, and prevents discussion from drifting into tangential subjects.
You’re 33% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.