Marissa Mallahan

January 25, 2018

BIS 343
Professor Wishart
Module 3 Essay

Prompt #1 (10 points):

 What practices are not effective when trying to avoid the common information effect and
hidden profiles?
 What practices are effective?
 Contrast the suggestions in Chapter 6 in the MTT text regarding the common information
effect and hidden profiles with your own team-based experiences. (Use at least two in-text
citations)

Thompson (2014) defines the common information effects as “the main determinant of

how much a given fact influences a group decision is not the fact itself, but rather, how many

people happen to be aware of this fact prior to group discussion” (p.139). Hidden profile is

defined by the text as “a superior decision alternative, but its superiority is hidden form group

member because each member has only a portion of the information that supports this superior

alternative” (Thompson, 2014, p.140). Leaders or groups can take steps to avoid both the

common information effect as well as hidden profile. MTT also offer several steps that leaders

and groups should avoid as they do not effectively prevent common information effect and

hidden profile. The six practices that do not work are: increase the amount of discussion,

separate review and decisions, increase the size of the team, increase information load,

accountability, and pre-discussion polling (Thompson, 2014). Increasing the amount of

discussion does not work as even though team are told to spend more time deliberating over

information, “they will still fall prey to the common information effect” (Thompson, 2014,

p.142). Separate review and decisions in not effective as research showed that team members are

more likely to favor those facts initially shared by the team, even after being told to review all

relevant information (Thompson, 2014). Increasing the size of the does not increase how
 Module 3 Essay 2

information is distributed within the group. Thompson (2014) states that increasing information

load negative affect as groups are more likely to discuss shared information. Furthermore, that

“groups perform better when they can reduce their cognitive load” (Thompson, 2014, p.143).

Prompt #2 (10 points):

 Give some examples of team mental models (ones you hold currently, or have held in the
past), and discuss them. (If you cannot think of any team mental models that you hold, then you
will need to ask for examples from friends or roommates who work in teams, either as volunteers
or as staff.) Refer to and cite at least two passages/concepts from Chapter 6 in the MTT text, in
connection with your examples.

Team mental model is defined as “a common understanding that members of a group or

team share about how something works” (Thompson, 2014, p.148). Fisher (2012) states that the

team mental model “allow all team members to interpret relevant information in a similar

manner, share expectations regarding future events, and develop similar explanations for

situations faced by the team.” One team mental model I have held in the past or have is the 80/20

or the Pareto’s principle. The 80/20 rule state that 80 percent to the effects comes from 20

percent of the causes, or simple 80% of results come from only 20% of our inputs. Another

mental model I have is cause-and-effect, the belief that to every action there is an equal result.

Another mental model I have held and at still to this day is cognitive bias, which occurs when we

hold on to our own preferences and beliefs regardless of opposing information. These three

mental models have shaped my perception going into any group/team project, and experienced

that other members of the groups shared the same mindset coming in initially. Thompson (2014)

points out two key considerations team members have about their actual work: accuracy of the

model and correspondence (or noncorresopondence) between members’ models. In looking at

the accuracy of the model, Thompson point out that “teams that hold erroneous mental model

concerning the task at hand, there well-intentioned behavior could produce disastrous results”
 Module 3 Essay 3

(2014, p.149). Cognitive bias is any example of have a valve mental model, the group decision is

not rooted data or fact, but rather is the group’s belief. When examining the degree of

correspondence or noncorrespondence, Thompson points out that “the greater the overlap or

commonality among team members’ mental models, the greater the likelihood that team

members will predict the needs of the task and team, adapt to changing demands, and coordinate

activity with one another successfully” (2014, p.149).

Prompt #3 (10 points):

 Do you think that individuals or groups are better decision-makers? Justify your choice.
 In what situations would individuals be more effective decision-makers than groups, and
in what situations would groups be better than individuals?
 Be sure to draw on (and cite in-text) a variety of applicable content / ideas (at least three
different passages) from Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 in the MTT text.

In my opinion, the situation dictates if individual or groups are better decision-makers.

Decision making as Thompson (2014) highlights is “an integrated sequence of activities that

includes gathering, interpreting, and exchanging information” (p.163). Individuals makes better

decision when it comes to simple daily task, like and oil change or what to cook. However, in

situation where issues are more complex, groups are better decision-makers. Per Thompson

(2014) “groups outperform individual due to a process known as group-to-individual transfer, in

which group member become more accurate during the group interaction” (p.169). Individuals in

contrast to groups are more like to have to conformation bias. Conformation bias is defined as

“the tendency for people to consider evidence that supports their position, hypothesis, or desire

and disregard or discount (equally valid) evidence that refutes their beliefs” (Thompson, 2014,

p.165). Conformation bias leads to what Thompson (2014) see as tunnel vision.

Prompt #4 (10 points):

 What are some steps a manager can take to prevent groupthink in his or her group/team?
 How might these steps (and the measures outlined in Exhibit 7-7) have prevented some of
the real-life disasters cited in this chapter (such as the examples in Exhibit 7-6)?
 Module 3 Essay 4

 Cite one or more examples from this exhibit as well as two or more other passages from
Chapter 7 in the MTT text (with proper in-text citations, as always).

One pitfall group should avoid during the decision-making process is groupthink.

Groupthink per Thompson (2014) “occurs when team member place consensus above all other

priorities – including using good judgment” (p.171). There are several step managers can take to

prevent groupthink in his or her group/team, such as: monitor team size, provide a face-saving

mechanism for team, and inviting different perspectives. Team size has and affect on groupthink

as “larger teams are more like to fall prey to groupthink” (Thompson, 2014, p.175). Therefore, it

is best to have team of small size, as teams of more than 10 members leave members feeling less

personal for outcomes, intimidated, and hesitant (Thompson, 2014). By providing a face-saving

mechanism for their team mangers will find that they are “less like to succumb to groupthink that

teams that do not have” (Thompson, 2014, p.175). By inviting different perspective “team

members assume the perspective of other constituencies with a stake in the decision”

(Thompson, 2014, p.176).

The steps identified in the previous paragraph along with the measure identify in Exhibit

7.7 of MTT could have helped in preventing the real-life disasters cited in Exhibit 7.6 of MTT. If

leader had utilized preventive condition and invite different perspective during the US invasion

of Iraq in 2002, public by in and perception might have been different. The US invasion was bias

solely on the belief that “Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, it was

proven later that there were no WMDs found within the country. Preventative conditions within

an individual allows than to be explicit and direct about policy preference, why from a group

standpoint it leads to candidness (Thompson, 2014). President Bush administration failed to also

consider the perspective of those outside the administration even after been presented with facts.

Per Thompson (2014) “those person offering the counterpoint should prepare as they would if
Module 3 Essay 5

they were working on a court case – win other words, they should assemble data and evidence”

(p.176).
Module 3 Essay 6

Reference

Fisher, D. M., Bell, S. T., Dierdorff, E. C., & Belohlav, J. A. (2012). Facet personality and

surface-level diversity as team mental model antecedents: Implications for implicit

coordination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 825-841.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1037/a0027851

Thompson, L. (2014). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, 5th edition. Pearson. ISBN-13:

978-0132968089