Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Essay 3
Essay 3
Essay 3
Team dynamics can be complex and self-defeating. While in many instances teams may
outperform individuals, members and leaders must remain vigilant against forces that negatively
impact team functioning and decision-making. Two common issues that can plague team
processes and success are the common information effect and groupthink. This analysis will
discuss several techniques to combat these issues, both ineffective and effective.
Avoidance Practices
The common information effect can cause many problems in team decision-making.
According to Thompson, this fallacy occurs when “the impact of information on the aggregate
decision of the team is directly related to the number of members of the team who know the
information prior to making a group decision” (2016, p.150). This essentially leads to
commonly known information being discussed more often and for longer periods than unique
information that would likely influence the decision process. One such instance is a hidden
profile, or a superior alternative which is not recognized as superior because each member has
Ineffective Strategies
Efforts to curb the common information effect by increasing the size of the team or the
information load actually have the opposite effect and increase the tendency to discuss common
information when the distribution of information stays the same (Thompson, 2016). Pre-
discussion polling can trigger conformity pressure, yet when members avoid stating their
preferences and hold a separate review from decision to review all facts the discussion still
accountability can affect decision-making negatively as well. However, Thompson points out
that “when groups are made to be accountable for their process (rather than outcome), they are
more likely to repeat unshared information and make better decisions” (2016, p.154).
Effective Strategies
noncommon information after it has been dismissed helps to improve the quality of decision-
making (Thompson, 2016). Leaders can greatly facilitate such efforts by acting in an
information management role and ensuring critical info is given due attention (Thompson, 2016).
Overall team health seems to play an important part in reducing the common information effect
as well. Groups where status differences were minimized, confidence and learning were
encouraged, and where a culture of trust and familiarity existed were less likely to make poor
decisions due to the common information effect (Thompson, 2016). Moreover, “the more team
members perceive themselves to be cooperatively interdependent with others on their team, the
more they share information, learn and are effective” (Thompson, 2016, p.157). It appears that
teams who have a sense of psychological safety and a learning, collaborative culture can more
Groupthink
“Groupthink occurs when team members place consensus above all other priorities-
including using good judgment-when the consensus reflects poor judgment or improper or
immoral actions” (Thompson, 2016, p.173). This can result from conformity pressure,
management pressure, and overestimation of the group, though the main culprit seems to be
Keeping the team size low can help to prevent groupthink as larger teams inhibit more
openness and criticism. Thompson highlights the fact that “teams with more than 10 members
may feel less personal responsibility for team outcomes” (2016, p.176). It is also important to
create a safe environment where teams do not feel the need to save face at the cost of poor
decision-making. “Often face-saving concerns prevent people from changing course, even when
the current course is clearly doubtful” (Thompson, 2016, p.176). For instance, Johnson &
Johnson suppressed evidence that talcum powder was associated with ovarian cancer
(Thompson, 2016). This information, if shared upon learning, would have led to lower
performance for a time, but could have prevented the public relations disaster of knowingly
selling carcinogenic products. If the company had felt safe knowing the poor performance could
be attributed to factors outside their control, there would have been no need to safe face and
suppress evidence.
Another prevention method is the risk technique, a structured discussion situation where
team members discuss dangers and risks involved with a decision while delaying discussion
about potential gains (Thompson, 2016). This would have been a hugely beneficial process for
General Motors, who waited over a decade to recall millions of cars with defective switches
because they were saving $.57 per switch (Thompson, 2016). If they had employed the risk
technique, potential savings or gains would not have been discussed and the overwhelming risk
and potential danger would likely have led to a much more prudent and ethical decision.
4
Conclusion
Both the common information effect and groupthink can have devastating consequences
for teams and their decision-making processes. While there are several strategies that can reduce
the likelihood of both, keeping the team size small and focusing on exploring different
References
Thompson, L. (2016). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers (6th ed.). Pearson.