1. In your experience, have you found that decision makig groups tend toward gro
ID: 458335 • Letter: 1
Question
1. In your experience, have you found that decision makig groups tend toward groupthinking? If so, what factors contributed to this tendency? If not, what factors helped to prevent it?
2. Review the steps in the rational decision making model ( steps 1-4). This model, of course, applies to individuals and moght be difficult to apply to group decison- making situations. If however, you were a juror, how might you apply these steps to your own deliberations? How might the give you some useful guidance? What adjustments would you have to make because of the context (a trail) and a situation (a group process)?
3. In what ways might bounded rationality affect a jurors approach to a decision? How about satisficing? Intuition?Ethics?
4. A recent study found that racially mixed juries deliberated no longer, raised more facts, and conducted broader and more wide- ranging deliberations than either all white or all black juries. Why do you think this was so? Do you think that mixed juries are more likely to avoid group think than racially homogenous juries? Explian your reasoning.
These Questions are found in the book' Fundamentals of Management' on page 123-124. They are Case questions.
Explanation / Answer
1. Decision making groups tend toward groupthinking because when the desire for group consensus overrides people's common sense desire to present alternatives critique a position, or express an unpopular opinion. Here, the desire for group cohesion effectively drives out good decision-making and problem solving.
This is when team members convince themselves that despite evidence to the contrary, the decision or alternative being presented is the best one.
When a team member expresses an opposing opinion or questions the rationale behind a decision, the rest of the team members work together to pressure or penalize that person into compliance.
After a few successes, the group begins to feel like any decision they make is the right one because there is no disagreement from any source
2.
Rational decision making is a multi-step process for making choices between alternatives. The process of rational decision making favors logic, objectivity, and analysis over subjectivity and insight. The word "rational" in this context does not mean sane or clear-headed as it does in the colloquial sense.
The approach follows a sequential and formal path of activities. This path includes:
Formulating a goal(s) Identifying the criteria for making the decision Identifying alternatives Performing analysis Making a final decision.
The rational model of decision making assumes that people will make choices that maximize benefits and minimize any costs. The idea of rational choice is easy to see in economic theory. For example, most people want to get the most useful products at the lowest price; because of this, they will judge the benefits of a certain object (for example, how useful is it or how attractive is it) compared to those of similar objects. They will then compare prices (or costs). In general, people will choose the object that provides the greatest reward at the lowest cost.
The rational model also assumes:
An individual has full and perfect information on which to base a choice. Measurable criteria exist for which data can be collected and analyzed.
The rational-decision-making model does not consider factors that cannot be quantified, such as ethical concerns or the value of altruism. It leaves out consideration of personal feelings, loyalties, or sense of obligation. Its objectivity creates a bias toward the preference for facts, data and analysis over intuition or desires.
3. People are motivated to approach their decision-making in certain ways, to believe and accept certain things, and to reject data or information. It is faith in the jury system that encourages its means to improve practices to further the effort to have open-minded and thoughtful jurors as triers of fact. They (meaning the decision-making group) are telling others what values they stand for, and which values, actions, and choices they abhor. They are impelled to talk because they want to express what is important to them. A juror can be motivated to do the same thing in deliberation. People are supposed to fight for certain interpretations because a verdict is about values, principles, and justice, and which party they feel is right and which is wrong. The role of deliberation, using the terminology above, can quickly become a “hot” cognitive effort, even if people are doing their best to focus on the “objective” evidence and the law as provided to them by the judge. For these reasons, adequate assessments of potential jurors’ views, attitudes, experiences, etc. is critical to making an informed judgment about a particular person’s appropriateness to sit as a juror
The term bounded rationality “suggests that decision makers are limited by their values and unconscious reflexes, skills, and habits” (Griffin, 2013, p. 9-3a, para. 2). For a juror, bounded rationality would manifest in his/her internal biases toward specific groups of people, toward organizations, and perhaps even religions. These preconceptions are learned and developed over time, and as such, can be extremely difficult to detect, let alone subvert or eradicate. Therefore bounded rationality can cause a juror to make decisions that are in some way affected by their past experiences and knowledge, but in a negative way. This could result in the incarceration or execution of an innocent person, or to a lesser degree; a hung jury. Satisficing is analogous to comprising or “settling” on an alternative choice, when a better option may exist (Griffin, 2013, p. 9-3b, para. 3). This condition can spell disaster in a courtroom, if jurors decide to be complacent or lackadaisical when it comes to person’s life or freedom. By satisficing on a given judgment before exhausting all possible options, an improper or illegal sentence might be imposed, which violates the convicted individual’s constitutional right.
Intuition refers to our existential beliefs about a given subject, based on “gut feelings” (Griffin, 2013, p. 9-3c, para. 1). A substantial percentage of decisions are positively affected by this phenomenon, which means intuition is not arbitrary or easily dispensable. In a jury trial, a juror’s intuition may lead him/her to “feel” as if a person seems guilty, based on past life experiences and other intangible factors. Personally, I don’t believe that intuition has any place in a courtroom, as a person’s well-being and livelihood are at stake. The justice system relies upon logic and reason, and therefore “gut feelings” should be left to gambling.
Ethics, the set of guidelines we all use to determine right from wrong, can have a tremendous impact in a civil or criminal trial. For instance, if one of the jurors is breaking the rules of the court (talking about the case, using cell phone to search the internet for information, etc.), another member’s ethics might lead them to alert a bailiff or security officer about the improper behavior. This ethical judgment would help protect the sanctity of the justice system, further ensuring that the accused gets a fair and impartial trial
4. As is true for any environment, diversity generally promotes better decision making and a more thorough examination of the facts in a group setting. There are several reasons for this, but the varied backgrounds of group members bring an added dynamic to the problem solving process – one that is not present in homogeneous groups. Griffin (2013) states “Groups are better at innovating because they benefit from the input of diverse individuals, which, in turn, generates greater variety in alternative courses of action” (p. 9-5d, para. 2). I believe this diversified influence becomes magnified in a jury room, as the gravity of the potential decisions are greater than in most circumstances. Quite often, a person’s life hangs in the balance during criminal trials, and so a more diverse jury offers the accused a more balanced hearing overall.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.