We have applied modern research about decision quality with material found in Vroom and Yetton’s robust volume, “Leadership and Decision-Making”. Here they identify eight styles of group decision-making.

Modern research has well proven that groups typically make higher quality decisions than the smartest person in the group (ie, individuals).  Therefore, it is relatively easy to picture the relationship as shown in the following array of potential styles of group decision making:

Next understand the eight styles and then watch what happens when we array them against a new chart, with the “X-Scale” representing how much time is invested by group members and the “Y-Scale” representing the tendency from authoritative decision-making to completely collaborative decision-making.

First the eight styles:

• Ai        Autocratic or directive style:  The leader defines the problem, diagnoses the problem, generates potential solutions, evaluates the options, and selects among the best options.
• Agi     Autocratic with group input:  The leader defines the problem and conducts some diagnosis. They look to the group for the cause and potential solutions, and then unilaterally selects among the best options.
• Arf     Autocratic with group review and feedback:  The leader defines the problem, diagnoses probable causes, and select a solution from among the best options. The leader presents their plan to the group for understanding, review, feedback, and frequently to transfer ownership.
• Ci        Individual consultative style:  The leader defines the problem and shares with individual members of the group. The leader solicit ideas around probable causes and potential solutions. After obtaining information, the leader selects among the best options.
• Gc      Group consultative style:  Similar to the Ci described above except the sharing occurs with the group as a whole, rather than as segmented individuals.
• Gd      Group decision style:  Leader shares the problem with the entire group. The group diagnoses probable causes, generates options, evaluates against criteria, and selects among the best options.
• Ps       Participative:  The group as a whole identifies and agrees on the problem. They continue to diagnose probable causes, generate options, evaluate against criteria, and select among the best options. The role of the leader serves as a true facilitator.
• Lt       Leaderless team:  The group has no formal leader, but assembles. Often a leader emerges, and may bias the problem or solution. However, the group still The group diagnoses probable causes, generates options, evaluates against criteria, and selects among the best options.

Implications

Having arrayed them in the chart above, it becomes apparent, that critical decisions demand more group time while simple and tactical decisions should be managed by individuals and not macro-managed by groups or supervisors. The next time you are faced with a critical decision, demand the time to take a facilitated group approach, and you will be amazed at what a solid group of subject matter experts can generate when properly facilitated as defined by the Ps style above.

______

Don’t ruin your career or reputation with bad meetings. Register for a class or forward this to someone who should. Taught by world-class instructors, MG RUSH  professional facilitation curriculum focuses on practice. Each student thoroughly practices and rehearses tools, methods, and approaches throughout the week. While some call this immersion, we call it the road to building impactful facilitation skills.

Our courses also provide an excellent way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 PDUs from PMI, and 40 CDUs from IIBA, as well as 3.2 CEUs for other professions. (See individual class descriptions for details.)

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Signup for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.