SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 1

Decision Making Processes in Small Groups

Abby Martinez
Aisha Graham-Perez
Chase Sorenson
Daniel Quilter
Jonathan De Lucas

April 27, 2017

Decision Making in a Small Group

We have created this training to help small groups make the best decision in the most

efficient way. We will be focusing on helping department managers at PEG Development so that

they may better be able to lead their individual teams through the decision making process. Each

day PEG meets as teams and groups in order to participate in finishing major construction

projects and we will be training them in hopes to increase their productivity.

We will be going into detail on key points and steps taken in order to make a good

decision while working in small groups. Why small group communication is important will be

addressed, followed in detail by some of the key aspects to decision making. Some of these key

aspects are setting objectives, brainstorming, participating and reviewing the decision.

Small group decision-making happens when two or more people get together to

accomplish a basic goal. We all do this everyday, from the kids at the local YMCA, picking

teams for basketball to the groups we have been put in for this project. We are all participating in

small groups everyday. It’s something that is almost second nature to us as a society and

something we do without even realizing we are doing it. For the most part it has been and

continues to be a very effective tool for making decisions.

Seeing as we all participate in small group communication or small group decision

making on a weekly if not daily basis, it begs the question: Why do we do this? Why take the

time to create group relationships in communication? Besides our basic need for relationships on

a human level, when we make decisions in small groups we often times make better, more

accurate choices than we as a large group or an individual level. A great example of this was

2016 United States elections. According to some polls as little as 10% of people were happy with

the choices we had for president. Yet somehow as a very large group (country) we came up with

Trump and Clinton as our two choices.

In their paper “Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small

group sizes”, Albert B Kao and Lain D Couzin (2014) write about how small groups help make

more accurate decisions. When many people are involved in the decision-making process

groupthink can many times take over. The perfect way to combat this is by making choices in

small groups of three to seven people. Kao and Couzin (2014) say “our results demonstrate that

the conventional view of the wisdom of crowds may not be informative in complex and realistic

environments, and that being in small groups can maximize decision accuracy across many

contexts” (Kao, 2014). Small group decision-making helps us as people make more efficient and

accurate choices in less time. For these and other reasons small group communication is vitally

important to society.

Literature Review

Setting Objectives

It is important for company employees to have several ideas on how the company

can grow. This will branch out their market, and everyone working there can feel more

engaged, and that’s what bosses want. The problem comes when a decision must be made

of some sort, and most people don’t agree on each thing. That is when small group

decision-making comes into play, in knowing how to reach a decision that everyone can

agree on.

First, it is very important for a company to set a list of objectives that they would

like to reach. John Gastil in his article small group decision-making says, “A group

without basic objectives is aimless and unproductive, but a group with a well-defined

purpose can be very innovative and effective”. This will help the group know where they

would like to end up, thus making it easier to come to a conclusion.

In our book organization communication, Fisher proposed a four-phase model on

decision making on page 143. He suggests that in all decision making there must be

“orientation, conflict, emergence, and reinforcement”. Orientation would be when the

employees are faced with the problem, coming to a conflict phase where solutions would

be suggested. Emergence comes into play when the group comes to a level of

understanding, ultimately ending with reinforcement, or a support towards the decision

taken.

Once the company has the established objectives, or goals, it is time to get

together to find solutions to the problem at hand. Having a group leader would be a way

of ensuring that people don’t talk at once, so everyone has a turn to share their opinion on

the issue. This way the group can be organized, and can plan the steps that they would

like to follow, getting them closer to reaching a decision.

Another solution can be having every member write down what they would like

to propose, this way the group won’t be affected by groupthink. Groupthink is when

certain individuals go along with what the group thinks, even if they think it is wrong,

just to go with the crowd. This can affect the way individuals think, thus making it harder

to express other people’s opinions towards the subject. Writing their opinion down

minimizes this factor, and lets people be less afraid of telling what they feel on the

matter.

Brainstorming

When coming together as employees to make a decision it is important to

make sure everyone is heard. Brainstorming is one of the first steps when coming to a

decision. It is important to brainstorm together during meetings because it opens the doors
SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 5

for every employee to really speak up and get their voice heard. When employees begin

brainstorming and putting their ideas out on the table they are more likely to generate ideas

than they would if they are alone at their desk (ODU, 2011). When brainstorming, it is

important to know that it is just the first step, so there is no concrete answers made. This is

just the step where employees can express ideas and learn from one another. While

brainstorming, employers should help their employees generate as many ideas as possible

without stopping. By doing this, the employers are allowing the creative juices to flow and

employees will be able to get more ideas out there rather than holding in their thoughts

about the task at hand. Employers need also to encourage creative and wild ideas. Really

let the employees engage in creative thinking.

In small group work, we can observe different forms of creativity. For

example, expressive creativity refers to individual group members' creative

endeavors that may satisfy their own needs but don't necessarily help the group

achieve its goals. In inventive creativity, group members offer unique solutions to

a problem. Innovative creativity happens when group members examine an issue

from an alternative viewpoint. The latter two clearly involve teamwork and

collaboration. (McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2000)

Employees may have a hard time feeling like they can openly be creative because of norms,

and because of this it is important for employees to really encourage creative thinking.

“Foster collaboration. In times of conflict, group members find it easier to avoid,

accommodate, or compromise when their goals seem to be at odds. Groups that are

committed to collaboration must be dedicated to discovering conflict solutions that

everyone can agree on. Collaboration can be time consuming and frustrating, but generally

results in innovative solutions to complex problems” (McGraw Hill Higher Education,

2000). Once the juices start flowing and the employees are really starting to get interactive

they can start piggybacking off of each other. A good way of doing this would be to say

“yes and” so when one employee says one thing you can reply with “yes and” to encourage

other employees to add to the idea, so on and so forth. This will not only encourage more

creative thinking but it will also encourage employees to really interact with each other.

After all the ideas are out on the table it is time to pick the ones that will actually

help you get reach your goal. It is okay not to accept all ideas that have been presented.

Discuss which ones best fit your situation with your employees and pick a few of the best.

“This is not to say that you must accept all recommended changes. After the group has

completed its participation, review each suggestion and comment on whether it may be

followed up immediately or tabled for another time” (Deeb, 2017). So remember when

brainstorming, focus on ideas rather than answers, create as many ideas as possible,

encourage creative thinking, and let employees piggyback off one another.

Participation

Individual participation in small groups, when done effectively can have an

impact upon large organizations. However, many members of small groups are

completely unaware of how to participate in resolving conflict, and what is relevant to

share with the group. In the article How Members of Intercultural Virtual Groups Use

Communication to Negotiate Decision-Making Processes, authors Carter, Solodovnikova,

and Liu noticed two ways in which group members failed to participate in group decision

making: Non-participation, and Abdicating Responsibility. Those who favored non-

participation were found to say nothing in meetings, or simply to not attend meetings,

settling instead on simply going along with whatever the group decided, regardless of

their own personal desires. Those who favored abdicating responsibility as an avoidance

of participation had a tendency to attend group meetings but participate only by saying

that they were fine with whatever the group decided simply because they saw the

outcome as inevitable (Carter, Solodovnika, Liu, 16-17).

This attitude of leaving decision making to others, particularly the attitude that

higher-level members of an organization will solve problems, can be particularly

problematic. When facing problems within an organization, those who are most familiar

with the problem are the workers who deal with it every day, not necessarily their

management. Therefore, by first participating in small groups, the best solution to

problems can be found. This; however, can be easier said than done. As stated by Bonito,

Decamp, and Ruppel in The process of Information Sharing in Small Groups:

Application of a Local Model, “The substantive problem is that shared information is

typically discussed more frequently during discussion than unique information, and that

group outcomes suffer as a result” (Bonito, Decamp, Ruppel, Pg. 137-138). In other

words, information that is commonly held among the entire group is discussed at length,

while information that is unique to individuals is held back. This can often be detrimental

to effective group decision-making.

Personal participation can often lead to argument. Conflict and argument can

often be inevitable. According to Meyers and Brashers in Argument in Group Decision

Making: Explicating a Process Model and Investigating the Argument-Outcome Link,

when group conflict arises there are three steps to resolving a group argument:
SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 8

identifying a generative mechanism, or in other words, finding the source of

disagreement. Identifying interaction sequences follows this. This is the portion where

most of the actual arguing happens. Each side lays out their points and communicates

their particular beliefs about their side of the argument. Participation and sharing of

individual information is of paramount importance at this stage, as the group will need all

available information to make the best decision. This is followed by the final stage of the

argument process: convergence-seeking activities. Convergence-seeking activities are the

stage in which each member of the group works to come together to a unanimous or at

least majority decision based on the facts that have been presented. Meyers and Brashers

site this as “absolutely necessary in situations in which groups must arrive at a consensus

(or near-consensus) decision” (Meyers, Brashers, Pg. 263-264).

In order to have effective group communication individual participation, through

sharing of individual information and opinions, listening to facts laid out supporting both

sides of the argument, and seeking to find a consensus small group decision making can

often find the best solution to problems and have a major effect on the larger

organization.

Review the decision

The final step in the decision making process is to review the decision and its

consequences (Dartmouth). When considering the results of a decision it is necessary to

evaluate whether or not it has resolved the concern or problem of the company. Another

key point is to evaluate the positive and negative characteristics of each solution that is

presented. “Groups can get sloppy and often need one member to remind the others to

consider the positive and negative features of each alternative” (Griffen, 2015, 220).
SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 9

Studies have shown that of the steps of the decision making process, evaluating solutions

is by far the most crucial to ensure a high quality decision.

“All decision making involves assessing a situation, identifying alternative

solutions, and selecting the best alternatives” (Beebe, 2012, 240). Coming to a decision is

usually harder than brainstorming possible solutions in the first place. When reviewing a

decision and coming to a consensus, multiple solutions may be combined. The final step

would be to then implement the selected solution and review the outcomes. Hopes are

that if the best solution is selected that productivity will increase.

Conclusion

The elements for a successful decision making process have been discussed. It is

important to first understand what effect a small group has on decision making versus and

large group. It is also important to understand the steps: setting objectives, brainstorming,

participating and reviewing the decision. The goal of the program is to inform the

company more in depth on each step and help them to then apply them in their separate

teams. We hope that the decision making process will be more efficient and effective. We

have learned that we can apply these steps in our groups as we prepare for presentations

and group work.

Training Information

 8:30-8:45 AM Introduction and open discussion about the decision making process.

 8:45- 9:25 AM Structured discussion about the decision making process.

o Identifying Objectives

o Brainstorming
SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 10

o Participating

o Reviewing the decision

 9:25-9:30 AM Split into groups for straw activity.

o Each member of the expert team will be watching the individual groups and

making notes

 9:30-9:55 AM Explanation of and participation in the straw activity.

o Each group will be provided a roll of scotch tape, and one hundred straws. Each

team will create a tower with the provided materials. They will be given twenty

minutes to make the tallest and most sturdy tower.

 9:55-10:00 AM Gather as a group

 10:00-10:15 AM Assessing group communication skills worksheet (Beebe, 2015, 170)

 10:15-10:30 AM Discussion about the straw activity

o What did individual people notice about their groups

o What did the experts notice about the groups

o Apply the activity to the decision making process.

 10:30-10:45 AM Bathroom Break

 10:45-11:15 AM Go over any current organization problems and help participants use the

decision making process to come up with a solution.

 11:15-12:00 PM The department managers disperse and apply what they have learned by

going to their teams to discuss and teach them what they have learned. As well as discuss

the solutions they came up with as a committee. (applying reviewing the decision)

 12:00-12:15 PM Department managers return to discuss how their teams felt about the

exercise.

 12:15-12:30 PM Q & A
SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 11

Bibliography

Beebe, S. A., Masterson, J. T. (2012) . Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices.

Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bonito, J. A., Decamp, M. H., & Ruppel, E. K. (2008). The Process of Information Sharing in

Small Groups: Application of a Local Model. Communication Monographs,75(2), 136-

157. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=b6a9c790-85f8-454f-

9b8e-

ae11f7366d96%40sessionmgr102&vid=0&hid=117&bdata=#AN=32771238&db=ufh

Carter, D. L., Solodovnikova, Y., S., Liu, Z., & Fu, H. (2007). How Members of Intercultural

Virtual Groups Use Communication to Negotiate Decision-Making Processes.

Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1-30. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=52f7ce5d-c1a3-4697-

bae8-

518723aa73d8%40sessionmgr120&vid=0&hid=117&bdata=#AN=35506633&db=ufh

Dartmouth, U. O. (n.d.). Decision-making process. Retrieved from

http://www.umassd.edu/fycm/decisionmaking/process/

Dick, Bob (1990) Small group decision-making: a robust version of Heller’s group feedback

analysis . Chapel Hill: Interchange

Gheondea-eladi, A. (2016). The evolution of certainty in a small decision-making group by

consensus. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(1), 127-155.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1007/s10726-015-9436-8

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2015).A first look at communication theory. New York:

McGraw-Hill Education.
SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 12

John Gastil: Common Problems in Small Group Decision Making

: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265575057

Kao, A. B., & Couzin, I. D. (2014). Decision accuracy in complex environments is often

maximized by small group sizes. Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 281(1784),

20133305. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.3305

Liu, Y., Liang, C., Chiclana, F., & Wu, J. (2017). A trust induced recommendation mechanism

for reaching consensus in group decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 119221-

231. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2016.12.014

Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (n.d.). Argument in Group Decision Making: Explicating a

Process Model and Investigating the Argument-Outcome Link. Communication

Monographs,65(4), 261-282. Retrieved from

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=0b95a423-944b-

4a22-8f96-

3ff57efd1a2c%40sessionmgr101&vid=0&hid=117&bdata=#AN=1443729&db=ufh

(n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2017, from

http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/comm/group/students/creativity.htm

Quebec Fuentes, S. (2013). Small-Group Discourse: Establishing a Communication-Rich

Classroom. Clearing House, 86(3), 93-98.

Reinig, B. A., Horowitz, I., & Whittenburg, G. E. (2015). Choice Shifts in Small Groups

Engaging in Repeated Intellective Tasks. Small Group Research, 46(2), 131-159.

doi:10.1177/1046496414566117

Small Group Decision-Making Procedures. (2017, April 16). Lecture presented at Old Dominion
University. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://ww2.odu.edu/~tsocha/comm326/326-
sp11-ch07.pdf
SMALL GROUP DECSION MAKING 13

Appendices