组织行为学：群体决策.docx

组织行为学：群体决策
The belief—characterized by juries—that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component of North American and many other countries' legal systems。 The belief has expanded to the point that, today， many decisions in organizations are made by groups， teams, or committees。
在工作群体内是采用个人决策还群体决策，主要取决于问题的性质.
l Advantage of Groups
Individual and group decisions each have their own set of strengths。 Neither is ideal for all situations. The following identifies the major advantages that groups offer over individuals in the making of decisions:
1. More complete information and knowledge
2. Increased diversity of views
3. Increased acceptance of a solution
4. Increased legitimacy
North American and many other capitalistic societies value democratic methods。 The group decision making process is consistent with democratic ideals and， therefore， may be perceived as being more legitimate than decisions made by a single person.
When an individual decision maker fails to consult with others before making a decision, the decision maker’s complete power can create the perception that the decision was made autocratically and arbitrarily.
l Disadvantages of Groups
1. Time consuming
2. Pressures to conform
As noted previously， there are social pressures in groups. The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can result in squashing any overt disagreement， thus encouraging conformity among viewpoints.
3. Domination by the few
Group discussion can be dominated by the one or a few members。 If this dominant coalition is composed of low— and medium-ability members， the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer.
4. Ambiguous responsibility
Group members share responsibility， but who is actually accountable for the final outcome？ In an individual decision, it is clear who is responsible。 In a group decision， the responsibility of any single member is watered down。
Effectiveness and efficiency: whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use for defining effectiveness. In terms of accuracy， group decisions tend to be more accurate。 The evidence indicates that， on the average， groups make better quality decisions than individuals. However， if decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are superior. But effectiveness cannot be considered without also assessing efficiency。 Groups are generally less efficient than individuals。 In deciding whether to use groups, then, consideration should be given to assessing whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the losses in efficiency。
Summary
Groups offer an excellent vehicle for performing many of the steps in the decision-making process. They are a source of both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If the group is composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds， the alternatives generated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical。 When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it。 These pluses， however, can be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity。
Groupshift
Groupshift can be viewed as actually a special case of groupthink. The decision of the group reflects the dominant decision-making norm that develops during the group’s discussion. Whether the shift in the group’s decision is toward greater caution or more risk depends on the dominant prediscussion norm。
Groupthink
We have all seen the symptoms of the groupthink phenomenon：
(1) Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made. No matter how strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions， members behave so as to reinforce those assumptions continually
(2) Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any of the group’s shared views or who question the validity of arguments supporting the alternative favored by the majority
(3) Those members who have doubts or hold differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts
(4) There appears to be an illusion of unanimity。 If someone doesn’t speak， it's assumed he is in full accord。 In other words， abstention becomes viewed as a “Yes" vote。
1. 参与的程度（弗隆——耶顿模型)
弗隆和耶顿主张,成员们参与群体决策的恰当程度应取决于所决定的问题的类型。他们提出了如下七个诊断性的问题,供管理人员在确定决策问题类型时参考。
(1) 有没有一个能说明某一解决方案比另一种方案更好的标准？
(2) 我是否已掌握了充分的信息?
(3) 所面临的问题有一定的章法吗？
(4) 我是否需要部下接受这种方案？
(5) 如果我独自做出决定，部下会接受吗？
(6) 部下的目标跟组织的目标一致吗?
(7) 部下相互间可能有矛盾吗？
群体参与决策的程度
参与程度
类型代号
说明
无
AI
管理人员独自做出决策。
单独
AII
管理人员向下级了解情况,但独自决策，可能告诉也可能不告诉下级是什么问题
协商
CI
管理人员向下级交底，向他们了解情况,也征求他们的意见.召集只有少数人参加的小会，但不如集全体会议,然后管理人员离开大家,单独去做出决策。
群体
CII
管理人员和他的下级,作为一个群体,一起来开会讨论问题，不过仍由管理人员最后决策。
高
G
管理人员和他的下级起开会来讨论问题，由群体作为一个整体来制定决策。
弗隆和耶顿的这个模型，可以帮助人们诊断他们要决策的问题的类型，还可指导他们选择应当采用的群体参与程度。但是，决不能把这个模型当成一个参与程度的简单的“食谱”来使用，不能以为这个模型能提供全部的答案.
2. 群体决策内容
工作群体自主程度的连续统一体
决策领域的内容
群体自主程度高
群体对其质量指标有影响力
——
群体对其数量指标有影响力
—-
群体能决定其外部领导问题
——
群体能决定接受什么另外的任务
——
群体能决定工作时间
——
群体能决定生产问题
——
群体能决定其任务的内部分配
——
群体能决定新成员的招收
——
群体能决定内部领导方式
—-
群体能决定各个人的生产方法
——

低
3. 群体参与的好处与局限
　　工作群体的参与问题,和组织中的权力分配及控制机构密切相关。参与性决策PDM。
　　参与性群体一般所面临的潜在局限性是时间、人格化和不平衡性。
4. 综合式群体解决问题
综合式群体解决问题模型——Ｗ。C. 莫理斯和M。 萨什金模型
W。C。 莫理斯和M。 萨什金综合式群体解决问题模型总结
阶段
活动
I　问题的确定
说明问题的情况，产生信息，澄清问题并确定问题.第I阶段就是鼓励群体去彻底探明、澄清和确定问题.
II　解决问题方案的产生
集体设想各种供选方案;审查、修正、斟酌、发展及重新组织合各种供选方案。第II阶段用来延长酝酿意见的过程,以防止不成熟的决策。
III　从意见到行动
评价各种供选方案，考察可能造成的后果，并将它与所期望的结果进行比较;修改各种意见，开列出各种供选的最后行动方案,从中选取一个进行试验.
IV　解决方案的行动计划
拟订一系列的行动步骤，指定每一步骤的负责人并记下其姓名；拟出一个行动协调计划。
V　解决方案的评价
检查所希望获得的结果；确定测定效果的方法，当方案付诸实施时，制定出搜集供评价用数据的监控计划；拟就应变计划，明确责任。
VI　对结果和过程进行评价
汇集评价数据以确定行动的效果,以及群体解决问题过程的效能。
Should management seek cohesive work group?
Intuitively， it would appear that groups in which there is a lot of internal disagreement and a lack of cooperative spirit would be relatively less effective at completing their tasks than would groups in which individuals generally agree and cooperate and where members like each other。 Research to test this intuition has focused on the concept of group cohesiveness。
Cohesiveness is defined as the degree to which members are attracted to one another and are motivated to stay in the group.
Determinants of cohesiveness
What factors determine whether group members will be attracted to one another？ Cohesiveness can be affected by such factors as time spent together, the severity of initiation， group size, the gender makeup of the group， external threats， and previous success。
Time spent together: The amount of time people spend together influences cohesiveness. As people spend more time together， they become more friendly. They naturally begin to talk， respond， gesture, and engage in other interactions。 These interactions typically lead to the discovery of common interests and increased attraction. The opportunity for group members to spend time together depends on their physical proximity.
Severity of initiation: the more difficult it is to get into a group, the more cohesive that group becomes. The competition to be accepted into a good medical school results in first-year medical school classes that are highly cohesive。 The common initiation rites—applications, test taking， interviews， and the long wait for a final decision—all contribute to creating this cohesiveness。
Group size： if group cohesiveness tends to increase with the time members are able to spend together, it seems logical that cohesiveness should decreases as group size increases， since it becomes more difficult for a member to interact with all the other members。 This is generally what the research indicates。
Gender of members: a consistent finding in recent studies is that women report greater cohesion than men. In one study， all-female and mixed-sex six person personal growth groups rated themselves higher on cohesion than did members of all-male groups.
External threats: most of research supports the proposition that a group’s cohesiveness will increase if the group comes under attack from external sources。
Previous success： if a group has a history of success, it builds an esprit de corps that attracts and unites members。 Successful firms find it easier to attract and hire new employees than unsuccessful ones.
Effects of cohesiveness on group productivity
Research has generally shown that highly cohesive groups are more effective than those with less cohesiveness, but the relationship is more complex than merely allowing us to say high cohesiveness is good. First， high cohesiveness is both a cause and an outcome of high productivity. Second, the relationship is moderated by performance—related norms.
Cohesiveness influences productivity and productivity influences cohesiveness. Camaraderie reduces tension and provides a supportive environment for successful attainment of group goals. But the successful attainment of group goals， and the members’ feelings of have been a part of a successful unit, can serve to enhance the commitment of members。
结束语