EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURAL VARIABLE OF NORMS ON THE TEAM DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

PART 2 OF 3

Our previous blog started the discussion of how team norms can impact on the effectiveness of said team’s decision-making ability.

In part 2 of this blog series we will focus on those norms which have been found to enhance team decision-making.

• Effective norms that specifically detail how a team will deal with dissenting team members can go a long way towards reducing the negative effects of conflict on team performance.  Specifically these norms should encourage the recognition of conflict as well as a co-operative style of management as these have been found to improve the quality of team decision-making (Galanes, Love & Wall, 1987).

• Norms that encourage the active participation of all team members enhances the quality of the team’s decision as well as increasing team member satisfaction (Baker, 1988; Mayer, 1998).  Most researchers would agree that an essential component of any successful decision-making team is the active participation of all its members.  This type of behaviour may help to promote full consideration of the issues associated with a problem and may well lead teams to avoid making poor decisions because no one objected to the current or proposed path (Mayer, 1998). However, more often than not we find that not all team members will participate equally during the discussion process.  Literature has found that variables such as visibility (i.e. how well a person can see and be seen by others in the team) and seating patterns affect both communication and participation (Baker, 1988).

• Norms stating that all communication between team members is to be honest, free and open can prevent teams from falling victim to the Abilene Paradox.  The Abilene Paradox can be defined as the making of decisions that privately the team members disagree with, but publicly accept.  One of the main characteristics of this phenomenon is that the team members fail to communicate their desires and / or beliefs to one another and, most importantly, sometimes even communicate the very opposite of their wishes based on what they assume are the desires and opinions of the others.

•  A norm of honest, free and open communication can also result in the identifying of underlying emotional issues within the team, before they become too disruptive to the team’s decision-making activities (Duffy & Shaw, 2000).  In particular this norm can help identify and circumvent the emergence of what is known as the Salieri Syndrome.  The Salieri Syndrome refers to the experience of envy within the team setting.  Envy occurs when the perception exists that a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possessions and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it (Duffy & Shaw, 2000).  Envy in the work team is thought to result in lower levels of team performance and satisfaction and higher levels of absenteeism rates.  Envy can also influence team outcomes indirectly as it increases social loafing and decreases team cohesion (Duffy & Shaw, 2000).  Such behaviours have all been linked to ineffective team decision-making.

• Norms that encourage the vigilance of team members can enhance decision-making effectiveness.  Vigilance can be described in terms of adequately assessing the problematic situation; adequately assessing the requirements for an acceptable solution; offering alternatives; evaluating the positive and negative qualities of the alternative solutions; suggesting goals; supporting ideas with information and reviewing tentative decisions put forward by the team (Diliberto, 1992; Mayer, 1998).

• Norms that encourage all team members to critically evaluate the information and ideas discussed by the team will enhance team effectiveness and improve the quality of their decision-making outcomes (Cihangir, Postmes & Spears, 2001; Forsyth, 1999; Janis, 1972).  More specifically critical evaluation behaviours have been linked to the prevention of phenomenon such as groupthink, which has been linked to ineffective decision-making in teams (Janis, 1972).  Groupthink refers to a strong concurrence-seeking tendency that develops in highly cohesive teams, which interferes with effective team decision-making. Cihangir, Postmes and Spears (2001) found that in cases where norms for individual independence of thought existed in a team, improved levels of team decision-making was experienced.  It was felt that such teams placed a greater value on unshared information than on shared information.  Literature indicates that valuing shared information will lead to a higher probability of incorrect, decisions being made (Cihangir, Postemes & Spears, 2001).

• Norms should foster co-operation over competition as this has been found to increase team effectiveness and improve decision-making quality (Forsyth, 1999; Gouran, 1974; Mayer, 1998; Sonnetag, 2000).  Co-operation can be described as behaviours that aid the performance of another team member or contribute to the ease with which team members’ co-ordinate their efforts (Forsyth, 1999).  Mayer (1998) states that information exchange increases in a co-operative team atmosphere and that the co-operative atmosphere, therefore, improves the quality of the decision eventually made by the team. Examples of co-operative behaviours include being “willing to share knowledge”, “supports others”, “able and willing to work in a team”, “reaches compromises if necessary”.

• Norms that encourage personal and team reflection, allows the team not only to learn from their successes and failures, but also to identify potential areas of concern or worry of the team members (Gutherie & Miller, 1978).  Gutherie and Miller (1978) identify some general principles regarding effective team decision-making effectiveness.  This includes ensuring that opportunities for reflection are built into the team’s decision-making process, to ensure that the team can learn from its mistakes as well as its successes.

• Norms allowing team members to change their minds should be encouraged to prevent them from feeling “locked” into a particular course of action.  This is essential if the team wishes to avoid harmful decision-making making traps such as groupthink (Janis, 1972). Team members must be encouraged to change their minds freely, should they encounter information that changes their original opinions.

Make sure to check back in for the final installment of this blog series where we will focus on which team norms are destructive to the team decision-making process. And remember Trigon is always on hand to assist you directly with any queries you might have on this or any topics related to team optimisation.

Sources:

Todkill, LI. 2004. An investigation into team decision-making and the influence of group structural variables: A case study of a management team. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Artium in Sociology in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Port Elizabeth

• Posted in: Uncategorized