This study develops a model of the determinants of individual commitment to the implementation of the decision (decision commitment). Decision commitment requires each individual in a decision-making group to understand the hows, whys and wherefores of the group decision (decision understanding). Attaining decision understanding comes about through constructive controversy, referred to as task conflict in this study. However, the generation of task conflict may lead to tension in the group, referred to here as relationship conflict, which has a negative effect on decision understanding and decision commitment. Relationship conflict and decision understanding mediate between task conflict and decision commitment to form a model of the decision-making process. Decision-making effectiveness is a function of both decision commitment and decision understanding. The model is tested by partial least squares analysis with latent variables using the results from a sample of eighty-four MBA students who worked in groups of four in a laboratory setting on a strategic management case study written specifically for this study. The hypothesised relationships among the variables are confirmed. Relationship conflict and decision understanding both have intervening roles between task conflict and decision commitment. An important finding is that high relationship conflict, not high task conflict, leads to lack of decision commitment. Group decision-making effectiveness is found only at moderate levels of relationship conflict, not at high levels of relationship conflict.
Authors: Anthony E. Boardman, Malcolm R. Clark
Source: 16th Annual IACM Conference Melbourne
Subject: Organizational Behavior
- “Let’s just go with it.”: The perils of decision neglect
- A Contrarian Approach to Decision-Making
- Are We Thinking Too Little, or Too Much?
- Are You Ready to Decide?
- Baba Shiv: How to Make Better Decisions
- Building Business Decision-Makers
- Closing the Decision Quality Gap
- Conquering Complexity With Simple Rules
- Contingent Capitalism: Planning and Decision Making in Emerging Markets
- Creating an Environment for Good Decision Making
- Cutting Your Losses: How to Avoid the Sunk Cost Trap
- Daniel Kahneman
- Daniel Kahneman: Beware the ‘inside view’
- Daniel Kahneman’s Strategy for How Your Firm Can Think Smarter
- Debugging Executive Decision Making
- Deciding How to Decide
- Decision Effectiveness Quiz
- Decision Making Tools
- Decision Quality: Improving Value from Capital Allocation
- Decision Rights: Who Gives the Green Light?
- Early-Stage Research on Decision-Making Styles
- Four Blueprints for Ensemble Decision-Making
- Getting Out of Embed: The Role of Social Context in Decision Making
- High-Stakes Decision Making: The Lessons of Mount Everest
- How Americans Are Living Dangerously
- How CFOs can Keep Strategic Decisions on Track
- How Group Dynamics Affect Decisions
- How to Make Better Forecasts and Decisions: Avoid Face-to-face Meetings
- How to Test Your Decision-Making Instincts
- Instinct Can Beat Analytical Thinking
- Jonathan Bendor: A Toolkit for Solving Problems
- Leadership and Decision Making
- Let’s Get Persian
- Making Better Decisions over Time
- Making Difficult Decisions in Turbulent Times
- Money Changes Everything
- Need to Solve a Problem? Take a Break From Collaborating
- Options Development is Crucial to Good Decision Making
- Outside Looking In: Maximize Project Success Rates with Premortem Strategy
- Peter Drucker on Making Decisions
- Philip Meissner, Olivier Sibony, Torsten Wulf
- Quote of the week: Why brainstorming is a bad idea
- Roskin on Decision Making
- Sometimes, Even The Best Leaders Just Go With It
- Strategic Decisions: When Can You Trust Your Gut?
- Team Decision Making in Complex, Time-Sensitive Environments
- The ‘Luxury Prime’: How Money Changes People
- The Art of Making Quality Decisions
- The Benefits—and Limits—of Decision Models
- The Business of Managing Decisions
- The Decision-Making Flaw in Powerful People
- The Downside of Deliberating: Why You May Not Want to Think it Over
- The Five Steps to Better Decisions
- The Five Traps of High-Stakes Decision Making
- The Four Rs of High-Stakes Decision Making
- The Secret Ingredient to Enterprise Decision Making
- The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing
- The Unconscious Executive
- Think Again: First Instincts Aren’t All They’re Cracked Up to Be
- Too Conscious to Decide?
- What If Your Gut Is (Gasp!) Wrong?
- What the C-suite Should Know About Analytics
- Where High-Stakes Decision-Making Goes Wrong
- Whether to bet, reserve options or insure: Making certain choices in an uncertain world
- Why Making the Decisions the Right Way is More Important Than Making The Right Decisions
- Worry and Ignorance
Click to See or Add Your Own »
Useful reading to accompany this article, therefore, is another paper presented at the 2003 IACM Conference, “Group Identity and Attachment: Two Paths to Trust and Cooperation in Groups,” by Susan Brodt, of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, and M. Audrey Korsgaard, of the Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina. It is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=402040.
Professors Brodt and Korsgaard also argue that the spirit of cooperation is an individual rather than a group dynamic. A successful group is based on the individually determined cooperation of each participant rather than some collective notion of cooperation. The degree to which individual members identify with the group determines the level of trust and cooperation within the group. The authors stress, however, that effective cooperation is not defined by compliance or conformity.