 When I ask people what is it that you dislike about working in groups? Why does it have such a bad reputation? Oftentimes the response that I'll get will be related to you know, something along the lines of Making any kind of decision in a group trying to make any progress and move forward is like one of those battle royale events in the WWE Where everybody's just trying to you know throw everybody else out of the ring You're all across purposes. He's just trying to get their point across get their you know Solution to be the solution and and and it just becomes this this mass brawl Right in trying to make a decision in a group But the truth is it doesn't have to be that way So what I want to do in this video is talk a little bit about making decisions in groups. What's that like? What's a you know an effective decision-making process look like and and and we'll go from there then right so first of all They're they're pros and cons of group decision-making just like anything else in life They're good things about trying to work in a group and make decisions and there are bad things And you know drawbacks to trying to do it this way first of all some of the advantages include Working from a larger pool right you're drawing from a larger pool like you've got more perspectives more ideas more knowledge more Experiences everybody brings their thing. So that's great You get you get to view any issue or whatever it is from lots of different angles and you get all kinds of perspective and all Knowledge so you're drawing from a larger pool rather than just just your own experiences and your own limited Kind of viewpoint on this issue. You can also get synergy, right? We've talked about synergy before where 1 plus 1 doesn't equal to sometimes 1 plus 1 can equal 3 Because you get people together and all of a sudden There's something magical happens right where you get this synergy And on their output is greater than it would be even just with those two individuals working on it separately and putting it Into the same pool when you work together on something you get that synergy you get this growth in it And the output can exceed what you would expect from the individual output of even just these two people So or more people so you can get this synergy that happens in group decision making people push one another and And really bring out the best one another and so anyway You know it can be more enjoyable for the group members when you when you have group decision making it can be more enjoyable it just brings more enjoyment to the group members in terms of It helps them feel a part of something and and they're they're contributing and For all kinds of reasons just makes group work more enjoyable at times it can when you when you have an effective decision-making process in place I can make things easier to implement many hands make light work So you get more people in on it and and implementing whatever decision it is You can that work can be spread out over multiple people. You don't have to do it all by yourself So it can make whatever decision you do make easier to implement when you when you do so in a group and when you're working in a group And it also provides less individual pressure when you are the one making the decision all on your own Of course, then everything is on your shoulders If it goes right goes well then great But if it doesn't man your feet you in either way up until that point when you find out whether it's going to Work out or not you're feeling a lot of pressure and it is all on you whereas if you make this decision as a group Gosh, you're in this together, right? And so you share that responsibility you share that burden you share that that kind of stress It's spread out a little more across the group and you're not just in it All on your own So it's less individual pressure when a decision is made by a group than when it's made by an individual There are some disadvantages to group decision-making and these won't surprise anybody. I don't think but There are process losses. There are things, you know, and that it can take time You know, it's easy when you're making the decision by yourself It's one step, right? You decide and decision is made, right? But when you're making decision in a group it can Be a process. There are there are ways that That things can be slowed down. It can feel like you're trying to run a molasses, right? And so that that you can have those kind of process losses when you're making decisions in a group You also see the emergence of social loafing, which is something we've talked about Accentually in previous videos, but you see that of course more when you're working in a group. You don't see that in individuals, obviously I'm the presence of group think which we're going to talk about here more extensively in just a few minutes, but Again, group think doesn't happen in individuals group thinks happens in groups, obviously, right? So so group think can be Something that emerges as part of group decision-making and of course it can take longer When you're trying to get when you're making the decision it can be quick and easy and you know in terms of Time you just make that decision and you move forward when you're working in a group It can take time to make a big decision in a larger group the larger the group the longer It's probably going to take you're going to need to get input from everybody Anyway, just the whole process is stretched out a little bit. Okay, so there are some disadvantages, of course, but in truth the advantages Typically outweigh the disadvantages if it's handled properly If you're if you're in a in a group that has a positive climate and you're doing things Appropriately in that group and it's a positive experience then Then the advantages of group decision-making will far outweigh the disadvantages in those situations Okay, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Let's talk about some methods for group decision-making Just real quickly here in a kind of across the spectrum one or some different ways that groups make decisions First one we have kind of a it's going to sound kind of funny, but the first one is called the plop Right really, which is no decision you get to the end of the meeting and people just kind of Won't go their own directions. They go their own way with no real decision made Maybe you'll come back to it later, you know, maybe you won't but maybe the decision is just no decision And so it's just called, you know the plop for whatever reason I so But yeah, people just basically kind of long away and and that's the end of it for that at least for that moment, right? And Another option is decision by expert if you have somebody who has specific expertise in this area real knowledge real expertise Far and beyond what the other group members would have then maybe you defer to that person and you say to them Look, you know this best. So we're going to follow your lead. You know what you're doing here So so you have a decision by expert where you just rely on that person's expertise and and and and move forward In the way that they should kind of determine Yes, I have what we call averaging which is sort of a meet in the middle type approach, right? This works Especially well, not well necessarily, but this is especially easy to fall into in some cases when you have something that's quantitative Or measurable in terms of numerically measurable, right? You can just say well You want 20 and we want 10. So let's just say 15 You know, we'll just you know, we'll come to the come to an agreement on the middle there We'll average it out and just say okay 15 is the is the way we'll go Now that's harder to do if it's not something that's quantifiable or numeric But you know in those situations where it is you can average it out and maybe that maybe that'll work Potentially i'm not saying it's the best method, but it's a a method for decision making Um one, you know is voting we live in a democracy here in america, right? Or at least a democratic republic So we're big on voting. Let's say, you know majority rules, but you know One of the majority the people are are wrong or don't know anything about that topic and they're just going on whatever There's issues of voting too, but but it can be a way to just kind of move things forward and and when you get down to it It's you know, I suppose as fair as anything, but uh, but you don't always get the best decisions When you end up with voting right because um What if everybody doesn't and like I say have that full picture or doesn't have the the full Facts or doesn't have the expertise or the the knowledge required to Make an effective decision in that situation. Anyway, there's So voting is an option, but it may not always be shouldn't be your first stop. I don't think right so um Then we have the option of also what we call consensus This is probably you know as far as decision making goes the ideal No method theoretically would be consensus where you all work together And and come to an agreement on what the best possible solution is going to be here and yet Everybody on board. It's not a voting. It's not majority rules. It's everybody is on board Everybody agrees that this is the way we want to do things and this is the way we want to move forward Now as you can imagine, of course, that sounds great, right? You know in a utopia in a perfect world everything would be done by consensus We would all just agree on things, right? We you know come to the same position and move forward as one That can be more difficult than it sounds, right? We all we all know that the consensus is not always easy so What can we do first of all to to reach consensus and and if it is the best method ideally Then then how can we go about doing that? So let's let's take a look at that for a minute How do we go about seeking consensus? And what's the the most effective method to make sure we're truly reaching consensus in these situations? First of all, we want to ensure that everyone is on the same page Everyone has all of the information that has had all of their questions answered and that that we are Fully on board with with what's happening and the direction that we're heading and that everybody's truly comfortable with that and And that we're you know, we want to make sure that everybody's Understands what we're talking about understands the details of what the decision involves and what's going to be required of them And what the end result would be what success looks like We just want to make sure everybody is on the same page has all the information possible And and that nobody has any remaining questions We also want to be sure that we're getting full participation Just because somebody's quiet doesn't mean they don't have an opinion on that Right, so we want to make sure that we're getting full participation that we're really Working to pull everybody into this process so that everybody has ownership And and everybody has kind of a stake in this and everybody is is involved and feels like you know They were a part of that decision And that like I said get ownership of everybody and get full participation. That's important when we are seeking consensus We want to be sure that we're listening well that we're employing effective listening skills And that's that goes beyond just being quiet when somebody else is talking We want to make sure that we're actually listening to them that we are Understanding what we're what they're saying that we're hearing, you know, that we're understanding what they're saying that we're interpreting it appropriately and correctly that we're evaluating it that we're really taking in making sure that it That it makes sense what they're saying to us. We're evaluating them that we are then kind of Remembering what it is they say as we build on these ideas that we were remembering and then we're repeating back to them We're responding not just repeating but responding to these people and and so that we Demonstrate that we understand these things. So we need to listen effectively and really demonstrate that we Are listening and and really employ effective listening skills in these situations We're gonna have to be patient Consensus is not an easy process all the time. So we've got to be patient We've got to be willing to put in the time and and the energy Into this process and really just be patient with the way that things are are going to unfold and and give it time to do so Right, and we need to pursue a true collaboration. Remember collaboration, you know, we're talking about compromise a lot But compromise means somebody's giving both parties are giving up something right in compromise So we want to seek True collaboration meaning that everybody's getting everything that they want out of this and that everybody's satisfied with that That's going to be the best for the long-term health of that decision for the group We want to resolve Excuse me resolve grid walk gridlock earnestly meaning if we were for the odds You don't want to just say, okay, let's just draw straws or let's flip a coin or let's you know Whatever these kinds of things you want to make sure that you're coming out of gridlock where you're at odds Which is okay. It's okay If you have conflict over ideas you want to be sure that you're resolving that though fully And and resolving it earnestly in the sense that That you're not just again skipping skipping some steps and flipping a coin and and saying well, you know That's just how it's going to be then or voting even in that situation would not be ideal because then Somebody still feels left out somebody's hurt and that's not consensus You want everybody moving in the same direction the whole time All right, so you got to resolve that gridlock on earnestly be willing to put in the time be patient listen Well and resolve any of those conflicts or that gridlock earnestly and be serious and be committed to that so Is all of this easy no absolutely not is it always worth the time no if you're just deciding, you know What to have for lunch then spending, you know three days seeking consensus isn't isn't the right idea, right? But if it's a major decision for this group and it impacts everyone and it has a you know, it's going to have a Wide-reaching effect this decision will on the overall outcome of this project then it is worth the time To to to pursue consensus and to really Come to consensus so that you have everybody on the same page I mentioned a moment ago that groupthink can be one of the disadvantages To group decision-making and we've discussed groupthink a little bit in previous videos But I want to spend a little more time on it here as part of this discussion So groupthink is the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group and in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility So, you know since mindset. I've just you know go along and we get this momentum going where people just feel the need to To go along and to follow along and that that you know We're doing this together. So we must be in the right So groupthink can be an issue in in many group settings. So we need to guard against it So what are some of the symptoms of groupthink some of the things that if we note these things Then we may be falling into that trap of groupthink First of all the illusion of invulnerability The illusion of invulnerability. So think back when you were you know in your younger years, you know, maybe your early teen years 13 14 15 and you just felt invincible, right? There was nothing that could harm you. No bad thing could happen to you really And as a result you just took maybe some more extreme risks You know as a young boy, I know we spent a lot of time jumping off of things or riding our bikes off of things and doing things that we Were just ludicrous looking back that but we just felt like there's no way we were going to get hurt We couldn't be hurt. We were young and and we were going to live forever. So We did these things that had extreme risk. Well, the same thing happens in groupthink When you have this collective momentum going forward and it creates this excessive optimism and this feeling that you can take extreme risks because You're in the right and nothing bad can happen to those who are Who are in the right, right? So we have this illusion of invulnerability Let's have collective rationalizations This is where uh members downplay negative information or warnings So any red flags that may come in any, you know sirens going off that say And maybe this isn't quite right Then we collectively just downplay that we figure out a way to excuse those things or to downplay that information Or avoid that information because We don't want the cognitive dissonance. We don't want to reconsider those assumptions We we just want to be safe in our group knowledge that we are in the right and nothing can violate that, right? There's also an unquestionable leaf in the group's inherent morality This idea that this group is absolutely right There's again no possible way that we could be wrong that what we are doing is you know, if not If not, you know a proviso of something that's handed down from god on high Something close to it right that we are in the absolute right And and there's nothing that can touch that so Anything else any other you know legal ethical moral consideration Really can be put to the side because the ends justify the means what we are doing is so right That nothing else can really be wrong in that sense And then that even if it is considered wrong in some sense It's ultimately right because what we are doing is right on the whole, right? So this in unquestioned belief in the morality of what we're doing Leads us to set aside any other kind of legal ethical moral consideration Then we also have a stereotyped view of outgroups. So this idea that anybody who is not one of us who's not part of our in group It is part of that outgroup and this is them. This is what's wrong with them They discount on these people's the outgroups abilities their their arguments their Again, their morality is questioned. So So they can't be right. So they we have the stereotype of anybody who is not one of us Is part of the problem and so they get stereotyped they get lumped into this group and so we We just Don't even consider what they're saying because they're so wrong There's no way they could possibly even be close to right Another symptom Is direct pressure on any member who expresses? strong arguments against The groups stereotypes illusions or commitments. So anybody who has a goal anybody within the group who has the The wherewithal to say now, you know, I'm not so sure about this boy We just pile on them right ungroup thing We just put that direct pressure on them to say no, you are wrong And and so you need to put that away and just fall in line All right, so we get that direct pressure from other group members on anybody who expresses any kind of question or Concern about what's happening We start to see self-censorship. So members start to Keep quiet if they do have those doubts if they do have Questions or or counter arguments that they might present They don't do so they censor themselves and say look, I need to just keep this to myself Obviously, I'm wrong and the group is right. So but we start to see that self-censorship people Keeping quiet about things that they maybe could or should speak up about The illusion of unanimity Where we just have this illusion that that everybody is in total agreement So when you have self-censorship and nobody is saying anything to the contrary and when they do you get that direct pressure So you're not saying it certainly as much and it's not, you know, loudly being heard Then that lack of dissent is viewed as unanimity Where, you know, we just say well, nobody's speaking up against it. So we must all be right Which just feeds into that idea of what we're doing is right and so forth It's just kind of again all of this feeds on itself When we get caught in this sort of vicious cycle of groupthink And then finally the emergence of the self-appointed mind guards Mind guards, this is where one or more of the members then protect protect I'll put that in quotes air quotes there protect the group from information that runs counter to the group's assumptions and course of action so again anything that Might suggest that what the group is doing is not a hundred percent, right? Then these mind guards Find a way to keep it from the group. They protect the group So to speak from that information, right and they encourage people not to, you know Don't listen to the other viewpoints. Don't listen to that news. Don't read that newspaper. Don't read that article This is all nonsense. It's all lies. So just avoid this information. So these mind guards self-appointed by the way these self-appointed mind guards Work actively to keep other group members from Viewing or or seeing that information encountering it in the first place and and anything that would dissuade them from the group's course of action So those are those different symptoms of group things just to apply this for a second in reality And I hate to get political and for the you know just for the record. I'm a I'm a libertarian So I'm not affiliated with either political parties. I'll just say this about both major political parties right now I see a lot of the elements of groupthink at work in our major political parties right now In both of them. I'll just say it that way both of them. Absolutely Um think they are invulnerable. They have these extreme Views that take these extreme risks and and go to these extremes because they think they are invulnerable because they think they have them the moral that the you know They have the uh kind of Monopoly or morality so to speak right both parties think they do that they are Absolutely in the right and they rationalize away any counter arguments when you present counter arguments to folks in in you know That are so caught up in in the the way of either of these parties They just kind of explain away These things whether it makes any sense or not and they absolutely stereotype the other side you see that on both sides You know, you see republican stereotype democrats as liberal communist socialists, whatever You know that wanted you know all their policies There's a wide range of views within the democratic party There's also a wide range of view within the republican party right with stereotype all republicans as Basically trump acolytes at this point right and they all are the same. We know that that's not the case There are certainly those that are but uh, but that's not everybody in that party not everybody in either party So we stereotype them We put pressure on any any member of the party who dares to speak otherwise Um, sorry, so if you're not totally on board then you must be part of the problem You see the self censorship where people even if they do have doubts They certainly don't want to go against the the grain And you know pounded down by all those people putting pressure on them. So they they keep quiet about it Whatever concerns that they do have This sense of unanimity then emerges because nobody's speaking up and saying well, you know, maybe that isn't quite right And you have the mine guards and I see this most at work in the media where People who are you know on the democratic side of things first of all say well, you can never watch fox news You should never watch fox news and vice versa people on the on the right say well, you should never watch msnbc There's nothing good there. There's nothing, you know, there's just full of lies and things So you have these mine guards that tell people don't do this When in reality it would do us all some good to get some perspective from the other side You know, I again, I don't necessarily agree with either of these parties or and so the major media doesn't really interest me From either of these but I'd make it a habit to watch msnbc some and to watch fox some and to watch cnn some Because I want to get those different viewpoints But mine guards would have a say no, you should only watch The one that works for our party and it says what we want to hear and we get caught in this echo chamber then Right with the media and it feeds into this as well And so we get sucked into this group thing politically Where we got to be one or the other it's it's an either or proposition, right? Well, no, it's not there are other options available even within those parties So but but we see this at work a lot of times in political parties Just one example that we see a group thing at work in all parts of life and all aspects But to me at least at the moment It just is especially evident in our political parties that they're being caught up in this in this group think mentality in this this momentum and wave of group things You know making decisions in groups as we talked about is it can be a challenge It can be difficult, but it can also be worthwhile We see that better decisions get made out of groups because you bring in different perspectives It it spreads out that that pressure that people feel making a decision There are just all kinds of benefits for making decisions in groups. So are there challenges? Absolutely But are the do those benefits outweigh those challenges? Yes in the in the right circumstances when this group is doing important long-term work Then then it absolutely is worthwhile to get it right If you have questions about the decision-making process in groups and how to make that go More effectively, please feel free to email me. I'd love to hear from you there And in the meantime, I just hope this gives you some new perspective on The possibilities that exist within group decision-making and some ways that we can Make that process work for us in a constructive way