Kaitlin Whalen

Arizona State University

OGL 343: Social Processes in Organizations

Prof. Gustafson

Reading Essay 3

November 4, 2020
Prompt #1: What practices are not effective when trying to avoid the common information effect

and hidden profiles (3 points)? What practices are effective (3 points)?  Contrast the

suggestions in Chapter 6 in the MTT text regarding the common information effect and hidden

profiles with your own team-based experiences (4 points).

When attempting to avoid the common information effect and hidden profiles, there are

quite a few strategies that fall short. These include increasing the amount of discussion among

the team, increasing the size of the team, separating review from the decision, increasing

information load, pre-discussion polling, and surprisingly, maintaining accountability within the

group (Thompson, pg. 153-154).

Effective practices of avoiding the common information fallacy include utilizing

leadership to keep the information vital and encouraging team members to contribute to the

discussions (Thompson, pg. 154). Teams can also focus on unique information through the

discussion and redirect the conversation to repeat known information if the conversation begins

to drift (Thompson, pg. 154). Other effective practices include considering the task a "problem

that needs to be solved" rather than a "judgment", allowing team members to rate each decision

rather than simply choosing what they believe is the best, and encouraging team members to not

judge until after all options are discussed (Thompson, pg. 156).

In my experience, hidden profiles is a trait people develop from a young age. Often in

childhood, we are taught that to get our way, information must be suppressed. As the 7th of 8

children growing up, I have always been part of a "group". I would often utilize hidden profiles

to not let my father know that my mother had already said no to what I was asking of him. In the

workplace, I have fallen victim to hidden profiles due to job applicants who choose to not fully
disclose their future plans. They inevitably quit upon being hired because of moving plans or

other career objectives they failed to mention in their interview. This wasted time and money

training employees that had ulterior motives. I have, however, learned of several new questions

to ask during interviews and valuable techniques to guide applicants back on topic to answer

such questions.

Prompt #3: Do you think that individuals or groups are better decision-makers? Justify your

choice (5 points). In what situations would individuals be more effective decision-makers than

groups, and in what situations would groups be better than individuals (5 points)?  

There is no doubt that I believe groups are better decision-makers than individuals. Although it

may take more time for a group to come to a consensus, they have the ability to brainstorm and

bring together thoughts to ensure all ideas are fully analyzed. An obstacle I experience when

making decisions alone is not considering all aspects of the decision. Any decision made will

have pros and cons and I find it very difficult to fully contemplate every positive aspect or

consequence that could occur.

Although groups tend to make better decisions, there are circumstances where a decision

should be made by a single individual. The most obvious of this scenario is when a group can't

reach a verdict. Sometimes groups are unable to work together and can slow down and hamper

the decision-making process (Thompson, pg. 172). If the decision needs to be made promptly, an

individual leader will need to step up and take action to make the decision. Sometimes, it is also

more cost-effective to have an individual make a decision rather than a group. If there are no

large consequences, there is not too much harm in allowing a single individual to decide in order
to comply with budgeting regulations.

Making decisions can be an exhausting task for one person to tackle and working in a

group can help limit decision fatigue (Thompson, pg. 168). As fatigue sets in, decisions can

become harsher and less thought through. To ensure all aspects of the decision have been

observed, working in a group is more beneficial.

Prompt #4: What are some steps a manager can take to prevent groupthink in his or her

group/team – discuss at least two steps (5 points)? How might these steps (and the measures

outlined in Exhibit 7-6) have prevented some of the real-life disasters cited in this chapter (such

as the examples in Exhibit 7-5) (5 points)? 

There are several methods a manager can implement to prevent groupthink from

occurring in their team/group. Although one method is limiting the size of the group to under ten

members, this is sometimes an impracticable task (Thompson, pg. 176). Another method in

preventing groupthink involves assigning a team member the role of "devil's advocate"

(Thompson, pg. 177). By encouraging members to challenge the group's decision, there is a

much lower possibility of members simply agreeing with the group (Thompson, pg. 177). This

will allow a much higher quality decision-making process to be implemented. Documenting all

alternative viewpoints or other possible suggestions can limit groupthink, as well (Thompson,

pg. 178). A group can then utilize these alternatives to create a "second solution" in case their

first has unforeseen flaws (Thompson, pg. 178). Not only does this allow failing the first time,

but it will also improve performance quality, encourage new ideas, and limit groupthink.

There are a few examples within Chapter 7 of Making the Team that I believe could have
been avoided. Regarding the BP oil spill, it is stated that several employees were aware of the

risks and spotted the warning signs as they were presented yet didn’t speak up (Thompson, pg.

173). This is due to the need of conforming to the group and groupthink. If BP had encouraged

employees to speak up and challenge the poor decisions made by BP, there is a large possibility

the famous BP oil spill could have been prevented.

General Motor's poor decision that the safety of their customers was less important than

saving money is what I believe was the largest factor in their company going under. This could

have been avoided if the company allowed second solutions and saw the risks associated with

putting money above their customers.

 Works Cited

Thompson, L. (2017). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers (6th ed.). Pearson.