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

PART 3 OF 3

Part 1 of this blog series started the discussion of how team norms can impact on the effectiveness of said team’s decision-making ability.

In part 2 we looked at those norms which have been found to enhance team decision-making.

Now in the 3^rd and final installment we will touch briefly on the norms which inhibit effective team decision-making.

• Formal norms (norms that are written or otherwise conspicuously and intentionally adopted by a team e.g. rules or operating procedures) that are established early in the team’s development may come into conflict with norms that emerge informally as the team’s development progresses.  Such norms may be inconsistent with one another resulting in confusion, which would impact negatively on the team’s ability to perform their tasks (one of which may very well be decision-making) (Davis, 1969).  The team must ascertain whether or not the formal and informal norms are consistent with one another.  Any inconsistency can result in the divided loyalties of team members as well as confusion with regards to expected behaviours.

 

• Norms that prohibit any form of dissent within the team can decrease member satisfaction and commitment as well as stifling creative and critical thinking all of which is detrimental to the team’s decision-making (De Dreu & West, 2001; Gouran, 1974).  While many teams ultimately strive for harmony and consensus and take active measures (i.e. through the setting of norms) to avoid conflict within the team, research seems to indicate that stifling all conflict might prove to be the team’s worse mistake.  Minority dissent within the team has been linked with increased creativity and increased critical and analytical thinking within the team.  All of which contribute greatly to the team’s successful completion of its duties (including decision-making) and overall team member satisfaction (De Dreu & West, 2001). It has been argued that minority dissent is surprising and leads majority members to wonder why the minority thinks the way it does.  Majority members seek understanding of the minority position to better reject it, this process forces them to analyse information from another perspective, which forces them to think critically (De Dreu & West, 2001).

 

• If the members of a highly cohesive team establish a norm of low-level productivity, then they will adhere to that standard (Gouran, 1974).  Highly cohesive teams are often more committed to the actualisation of the team’s norms.  However, this does not only apply to norms that enhance the team’s decision-making quality.  In cases where the team adopts a low standard or norm of productivity they will remain fiercely committed to such a norm.  This results in reduced team task performance and subsequently impaired team decision-making as well (Gouran, 1974).

 

• Teams that have norms that promote the importance of consensus or agreement per se run the risk of stifling critical thought, which can lead to reduced levels of performance (Cihangir, Postmes & Spears, 2001).  Team norms of consensus impacts on how team members value shared information versus unshared information.  If the team’s norms are strongly tilted toward reaching consensus, it could be argued that shared information would be regarded as having higher value, because it reflects and feeds this consensus.  The valuing of shared information is likely to lead to a higher probability of incorrect decisions being made by the team (Cihangir, Postmes & Spears, 2001).

Make sure to check back in for our next blog where we will tackle more issues regarding team development and 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