Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals, groups bring more input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Group members who participate in making a decision are more likely to enthusiastically support and encourage others to accept it later.

Group decisions are time-consuming because groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are conformity pressures. The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can squash any overt disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If they’re low- and medium-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally, group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it’s clear who is accountable for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single member is diluted.

Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but generally less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate person.64 In terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance of achievable solutions, the nod again goes to the group.65

We cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours than does having an individual tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency.

Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve effectiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than on learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority.66 Groupthink seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to its positive image.67

What can managers do to minimize groupthink?68 First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Have group members delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent in a decision. Requiring members to initially focus on the negatives of an alternative makes the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.

Brainstorming can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity72 by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism. In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all participants understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,” no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.

Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas—but not in a very efficient manner. Research consistently shows individuals working alone generate more ideas than a group in a brainstorming session does. One reason for this is “production blocking.” When people are generating ideas in a group, many are talking at once, which blocks individuals’ thought process and eventually impedes the sharing of ideas.73

The nominal group technique may be more effective. This technique restricts discussion and interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, as in a traditional meeting, but they operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the group takes the following steps:

1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas about the problem.

2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.

3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.

4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.

The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking. Research generally shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.74

Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on the criteria you want to emphasize and the cost-benefit trade-off. As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution; brainstorming develops group cohesiveness; and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a large number of ideas.