Team Decision Making: Pitfalls, Solutions & Cultural Impact
This paper examines the team decision-making process, identifying common pitfalls and practical solutions drawn from the relevant management literature. It begins by outlining the primary decision-making approaches available to teams — from command decisions to consensus-building — before analyzing major obstacles such as groupthink and the unique challenges posed by virtual teams. The paper then considers how cultural diversity complicates team decision-making, particularly in multinational organizations, and presents concrete steps leaders can take to overcome cross-cultural communication barriers. Overall, the research affirms that teams generally produce better decisions than individuals acting alone, but only when pitfalls are proactively managed.
- Introduction: Paper scope, purpose, and structure overview
- The Team Decision-Making Process: Common decision-making approaches and consensus building
- Pitfalls in Team Decision Making: Groupthink, virtual teams, and evaluation failures
- Impact of Cultural Diversity on Team Decision Making: Cultural stereotypes and cross-cultural communication barriers
- Overcoming Virtual Team Challenges: Practical steps for managing diverse virtual teams
- Conclusion: Summary of findings and key takeaways
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves logically from general theory to specific pitfalls and then to solutions, giving readers a clear progression from problem identification to actionable guidance.
- It integrates multiple scholarly sources and synthesizes them around a central argument rather than summarizing each source in isolation, demonstrating genuine analytical engagement.
- The inclusion of a structured table (Table 1) translates abstract recommendations into a practical reference, strengthening the paper's applied value for practitioners.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of synthesis: rather than treating each source as a standalone point, the author weaves together Bedard & Maroney, Petty, Congden & Matveev, and Brandt & England to build a cumulative argument about team decision-making complexity. Each new source extends or deepens the previous point rather than simply adding another example.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction establishing scope and purpose, followed by a two-part review section covering general process models and common pitfalls (including groupthink and virtual team issues). A dedicated section then addresses cultural diversity's impact on decision making, culminating in a practical table of mitigation strategies. A concise conclusion ties together the paper's main findings. This four-stage structure — foundation, pitfalls, cultural complexity, synthesis — is well-suited to management topics that require both theoretical grounding and applied recommendations.
Introduction
Anyone who has ever been a member of any type of team can likely readily testify to the difficulties involved in reaching a consensus on even minor and straightforward issues — such as seating arrangements — so it will come as no surprise to modern practitioners that the team decision-making process is fraught with a wide array of pitfalls. Some of these pitfalls can cause a team to fail outright, while others can result in suboptimal outcomes. Identifying solutions to commonly encountered pitfalls in the team decision-making process therefore 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 in any organizational setting. A discussion of how today's diverse, multicultural teams have further complicated the process precedes the paper's concluding summary.
The Team Decision-Making Process
There is a growing body of evidence that decisions made by teams generally result in greater organizational performance gains compared to decisions made by individuals acting alone (Bedard & Maroney, 2009). Nevertheless, creating and sustaining an effective team decision-making process requires a fundamental understanding of the team's goal, its principals and their relationships, and the other variables that comprise the team's purpose throughout its existence. Although every team is unique, there are some common approaches used by teams to make decisions, including the following:
An individual on the team can make the decision based on his or 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 — the most common approach, commonly termed a "consensus decision." Finally, the team can seek unanimous agreement on one option (Kessler, 1995, p. 38).
Although the fundamental outcome of the team decision-making process will depend on which approach is used, all approaches share the commonality of actually reaching some type of decision, even if it is suboptimal or outright wrong. The key to achieving optimal outcomes using any of these approaches is for teams to move through the respective steps in the most efficient fashion possible while ensuring that informed and rational decisions are reached that satisfy all team members to the maximum extent possible.
Achieving consensus can represent the most daunting aspect of the team decision-making process, but by ensuring that compromises are made when necessary, all team members can contribute to a satisfactory outcome. Achieving consensus in an amiable and cooperative fashion is in the best interests of all team members, irrespective of their personal views. As Kessler notes, "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 when teams reach decisions supported by all members — particularly when highly technical issues are involved — the decision is more likely to be the right one. 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 well-managed teams.
Pitfalls in Team Decision Making
Teams have a variety of decision-making models available to them, but there are some pitfalls 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 individual team members contributed their real thoughts and views rather than conceding to "the wisdom of the crowd." As Petty (2010) points out, "Groupthink is one of the nefarious decision-making missteps of teams, and a trap that many smart people and groups have fallen victim to throughout history" (para. 1).
Moreover, in their efforts to avoid confrontation or reach consensus quickly, some team members may simply agree with the majority despite serious personal and professional reservations about the decision. Fortunately, there are steps that team leaders can take to mitigate the effects of groupthink, including those recommended by Petty (2010):
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 fewer than ten members and ensure that there are well-defined boundaries for inclusion. Porous team boundaries and widespread casual involvement breed dysfunction, including pressure toward 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 consensus cost-effectively, it is important to allow team members and external authorities to provide feedback and to take that feedback into consideration. Petty recommends the "Six Hats Thinking" method to facilitate collaboration among team members.
5. Develop a "Plan B." Because top management may reject a team's recommended decision, an alternative, fully supportable solution should be developed simultaneously.
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 does not erode decision quality by verbalizing the negative aspects of proposed solutions.
While these steps can help mitigate groupthink, other common pitfalls include the problems associated with "virtual teams," where members rarely or never meet face-to-face and must rely on telecommunications technologies for collaboration and decision making (Brandt & England, 2009). As the world's commerce becomes increasingly globalized, the importance of the decision-making process in virtual teams has grown considerably. 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).
Another common pitfall is that studies have shown most teams are better at generating relevant information than they are at evaluating it. The failure of many teams lies 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 — a process that becomes even more challenging when team membership is culturally diverse.
Conclusion
The research was consistent in showing that teams typically generate better decisions than individuals acting alone, and that effective team decision making is an essential element of success in virtually any organizational setting. Unfortunately, empirical observations and a growing body of evidence confirm that the team decision-making process is a daunting enterprise that can become mired in petty individual differences unless effectively managed and led. The research also showed that not only is the typical team decision-making process fraught with pitfalls, but these pitfalls become even more pronounced when the team is comprised of culturally diverse members. Finally, the impact of cross-cultural diversity on the team decision-making process can reasonably be expected to be far more pronounced in multinational organizations with global operations; however, even small companies may have a diverse employee base that makes cross-cultural competencies important for team leaders.
References
Bedard, J. C. & Maroney, J. J. (2009, February). When are two auditors better than one? Group decision making in auditing. The CPA Journal, 70(2), 56–59.
Brandt, V. & England, W. (2011, November–December). Virtual teams. Research-Technology Management, 54(6), 62–65.
Congden, S. W. & Matveev, A. V. (2009, December). Cross-cultural communication and multicultural team performance: A German and American comparison. Journal of Comparative International Management, 12(2), 73–78.
Kessler, F. (1995). Management Development Review, 8(5), 38.
Meyer, E. (2014, May). Navigating the cultural minefield. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/05/navigating-the-cultural-minefield
Nicholsen, D. B. & Sarker, S. (2008, January 1). Determinants of effective leadership in information systems development teams: An exploratory study of face-to-face and virtual contexts. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 8(4), 39–41.
Petty, A. (2010, July 8). 6 steps for avoiding groupthink on your team. Art Petty.com. Retrieved from http://artpetty.com/tag/decision-making-pitfalls/
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.