Team Members' Direct Participation in Decision-Making Processes and the Quality of Decisions

• Autorzy: Ryszard Rutka , Piotr Wróbel , Ewa Wycinka , Małgorzata Czerska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

PURPOSE: Do teams manage to reach better decisions than those made by individuals? Numerous studies have delivered inconclusive results. Meanwhile, participation in decision-making can take various forms and is not limited to consensus group decisions, and the influence of the various forms of participation on the quality of decisions has been less frequently examined. The aim of the research was to determine the effect on decision quality of changing the form of direct participation in the decision-making process in the case of complex, multi-stage problems. METHODOLOGY: The article presents the results of a long-term experiment in which 598 teams of 2,673 people took part. The participants were asked to solve a decision problem using three decision-making styles: autocratic, consultative, and group. The participants played the role of members of a newly established project team that must plan its own work. The task concerned a problem that requires the analysis of a number of dependencies between sub-problems, in contrast to eureka-type problems. The decision problem was new to the participants, making it impossible to apply known solutions; a creative approach was therefore required. The decision was then compared with the optimal solution established by experts. Decision quality was based on the deviation of the proposed solution from the optimal solution. FINDINGS: The results of the experiment confirm the significant synergistic potential of increasing direct participation in decision-making for complex, multi-stage problems. A significant proportion of teams made better decisions as a result of increasing direct participation - replacing autocratic decisions with consultative and group decisions. The quality of consultative decisions was roughly in the middle of autocratic and group decisions. By using group decision-making, teams made better decisions than the average individual decision and came closer to the decision quality achieved by the best team members. This effect was universal, observed both in the strongest and weakest teams. It should be remembered that, while group decision-making has the potential for synergy, it is not always achieved. Group decision-making markedly reduced the risk of making highly misguided decisions, and it can be reasoned that direct participation protects against serious mistakes more than it guarantees the best possible results. IMPLICATIONS: Team leaders should be familiar with different decision-making styles, their advantages and disadvantages, and the scope of their application. This research suggests that increasing team members' participation to a consultative role and even better, a full participatory role, increases the quality of the decision. With the growing complexity of organizations that have to deal with accelerating change, technology development and increased competition, creating structures that can flexibly respond to the challenges of the environment requires the participation of team members at all managerial levels. The use of consultative and group decision-making styles for complex and multi-stage problems supports this process. The group decision-making style can bring better quality, but it has its limitations and it is not always possible to use it. It requires a team of highly competent people who identify themselves with the interests of the organization. Otherwise, the consultative form will bring better results. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: For the first time, an empirical study analyses the case of consultative decision-making, in which the team leader consults the individual opinions independently to finally come up with a final "team" decision. This approach is widely used by team leaders and managers in the field. This study shows that this approach constitutes an improvement over the individual (autocratic) one but still falls short of the group decision-making approach. Finally, this study which has been done with the largest number of participant teams (598 teams, 2,673 individuals), professionally active post-graduate students and over a 24-year period allows a sound statistical confirmation of the proposed decision quality improvement when moving from individual to consultative and group decision-making styles. (original abstract)

CEL: Czy zespoły podejmują lepsze decyzje niż jednostki? Dotychczasowe badania przynoszą niejednoznaczne wyniki. Co więcej, partycypacja pracowników w podejmowaniu decyzji może przyjmować różne formy, nie ogranicza się jedynie do decyzji zespołowych. Tymczasem wpływ różnych form partycypacji pracowników w proces podejmowania decyzji był dotąd rzadziej analizowany. Celem niniejszego badania była identyfikacja wpływu wykorzystania różnych form bezpośredniej partycypacji w podejmowaniu decyzji na jej trafność w przypadku złożonych, wieloetapowych problemów decyzyjnych. METODYKA: W artykule zaprezentowano wyniki eksperymentu, w którym wzięło udział 598 zespołów składających się łącznie z 2 673 osób. Uczestnicy trzykrotnie rozwiązywali problem decyzyjny wykorzystując autokratyczną, konsultatywną oraz zespołową formę podejmowania decyzji. Uczestnicy odgrywali rolę członków nowopowołanego zespołu, którego zadaniem było zaplanowanie prac w ramach nowego projektu. Problem decyzyjny był dla uczestników na tyle nowy, aby podczas jego rozwiązywania nie można było zastosować wprost znanych rozwiązań w całości lub części, wskazane było natomiast podejście kreatywne. Następnie rozwiązanie problemu było porównywane z optymalną decyzją wypracowaną wcześniej przez ekspertów. Różnica pomiędzy decyzjami była wyznacznikiem jakości decyzji. WYNIKI: Rezultaty eksperymentu potwierdzają potencjał synergiczny tkwiący w uspołecznianiu procesów decyzyjnych w przypadku złożonych, wieloetapowych problemów. Znacząca część zespołów wypracowała trafniejsze decyzje dzięki wzrostowi bezpośredniej partycypacji - zastępując autokratyczną decyzję kierownika decyzjami konsultatywnymi oraz zespołowymi. Dzięki wykorzystaniu tej ostatniej formy zespoły podejmowały trafniejsze decyzje niż przeciętny uczestnik zespołu oraz zbliżały się do decyzji podejmowanych przez najlepszego uczestnika zespołu. Uzyskany efekt był uniwersalny, występował zarówno w najsłabszych jak i najlepszych zespołach. Należy jednak pamiętać, że pomimo znacznego potencjału synergii, nie zawsze jest ona osiągana. Z drugiej strony, dzięki wykorzystaniu decyzji zespołowych znacząco ograniczone zostało ryzyko podjęcia wysoce nietrafionych decyzji, co oznacza, że taka forma partycypacji bezpośredniej bardziej chroni organizacje przed poważnymi błędami niż zapewnia podjęcie najlepszych decyzji. IMPLIKACJE: Ważnym elementem warsztatu menedżerskiego jest znajomość i umiejętność wykorzystywania różnych form podejmowania decyzji, w tym związanych z bezpośrednią partycypacją pracowniczą. Zaprezentowane badanie potwierdza zasadność zastosowania formy konsultatywnej i zespołowej w przypadku złożonych, wieloetapowych problemów decyzyjnych. Organizacje, które muszą sobie radzić z szybkim rozwojem technologii, coraz krótszymi cyklami życia produktów i wzrostem konkurencji, wymagają elastycznych struktur wykorzystujących partycypację pracowników na wszystkich szczeblach zarządzania. ORYGINALNOŚĆ I WARTOŚĆ: Uzyskane rezultaty potwierdzają wyniki dotychczasowych badań. Wartością dodaną badania jest uzupełnienie autokratycznej i zespołowej formy podejmowania decyzji stosowanej w podobnych eksperymentach o formę konsultatywną. Dodatkowo należy podkreślić wielkość próby badawczej, która jest wielokrotnie większa od prób wykorzystywanych dotychczas w podobnych badaniach. Co więcej, uczestnikami eksperymentu były osoby aktywne zawodowo, w przeciwieństwie do wielu podobnych badań, w których uczestniczyli studenci. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Personnel participation in management; Participative management; Decision making; Decision proces

PL

Partycypacja pracowników w zarządzaniu; Zarządzanie partycypacyjne; Podejmowanie decyzji; Proces decyzyjny

• Czasopismo: Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI)
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: 19
• Numer: nr 3 Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Success: Insights from Diverse Ventures
• Strony: 169--201

Twórcy

autor

Ryszard Rutka

• University of Gdansk, Poland

autor

Piotr Wróbel

• University of Gdansk, Poland

autor

Ewa Wycinka

• University of Gdansk, Poland

autor

Małgorzata Czerska

Bibliografia

• Alsughayir, A. (2016). Employee participation in decision-making (PDM) and firm performance. International Business Research, 9(7), 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n7p64
• Alzaanin, M., & Sulaiman, I. F. (2020). Employee participation in decision - making and its effect on job satisfaction. Proceeding of The 6th International Conference on Accounting, Business and Economics (ICABEC 2020), Penerbit UMT Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia.
• Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, Ch. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology: Volume 2 Organizational Psychology. London: SAGE.
• Ashill, N. J., & Jobber, D. (2014). The effects of experience on managerial decision-making uncertainty. Journal of General Management, 39(1), 81-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630701303900105
• Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Belhekar, V. (2017). Cognitive and non-cognitive determinants of heuristics of judgment and decision-making: General ability and personality traits. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 43(1), 75-84.
• Benjamin, E. R. (1982). Participation and the attitude of organizational commitment: A study of quality circles (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota).
• Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row.
• Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679705000705
• Bonner, B. L., Gonzales, C. M., & Sommer, D. (2004). Centrality and accuracy in group quantity estimations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(3), 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.8.3.155
• Casari, M., Zhang, J., & Jackson, Ch. (2012). When Do Groups Perform Better Than Individuals? A Company Takeover Experiment. Working Paper No. 504, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
• Chen, L., Kok, A. G., & Tong, J. D. (2013). The effect of payment schemes on inventory decisions: The role of mental accounting. Management Science, 59(2), 436-451. https://doi.org/10.2307/23359490
• Coleman, P. T. (2004). Implicit theories of organizational power and priming effects on managerial power-sharing decisions: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 297 - 321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02549.x
• Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95(33), 477-509. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201431
• Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/258351
• Crede, M., & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). Group judgment processes and outcomes in video-conferencing versus face-to-face groups. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6), 875-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.07.001
• Cummings, T. G., & Malloy, E. S. (1977). Improving productivity and the quality of life. New York: Praeger.
• Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392432
• Davenport, T. H. (2011). Make better decisions. In D. Kahneman, R. Charan & J.E. Thomas (Eds.), On Making Smart Decisions. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
• Davis, A. M., Katok, E., & Kwasnica, A. M. (2011). Do auctioneers pick optimal reserve prices? Management Science, 57(1), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1258
• DeVilliers, R., Woodside, A. G., & Marshall, R. (2016). Making tough decisions competently: Assessing the value of product portfolio planning methods, devil's advocacy, group discussion, weighting priorities, and evidenced-based information. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2849-2862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.054
• Diao, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Optimization of management mode of small- and medium-sized enterprises based on decision tree model. Journal of Mathematics, 2021(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2815086
• Einhorn, H. J., Hogarth, R. M., & Klempner, E. (1977). Quality of group judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.1.158
• Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 116-141. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2758
• Feng, J., Yan, Y., Huang, M., Du, Y., Lu, Z., & Li, B. (2022). A study on the multi-attribute decision theory and methods. Procedia Computer Science, 214, 544-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.11.210
• Hafner-Burton, E. M., Haggard, S., Lake, D. A., & David V. G. (2017). The behavioral revolution and international relations. International Organization, 71(S1), S1-S31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000400
• Hall, J., & Watson, W. H. (1970). The effects of a normative intervention on group decision-making performance. Human Relations, 23(4), 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677002300404
• Hamada, D., Nakayama, M., & Saiki J. (2020). Wisdom of crowds and collective decision- making in a survival situation with complex information integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(48), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00248-z
• Hammoud, J. (2011). Consultative authority decision making: On the development and characterization of Arab corporate culture. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(9), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13439.30887
• Hema, D., & Kumar, K. A. (2022). Optimized deep neural network based intelligent decision support system for traffic state prediction. International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research, 21(4), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13177-022-00332-2
• Hammer, T. H., Lanau, J. C., & Stern, R. N. (1981). Absenteeism when workers have a voice: The case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.5.561
• Hodder, P. W. (2001). "Earthquake!" - A cooperative learning experience. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49(3), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-49.3.280
• Irawanto, D. W. (2015). Employee participation in decision-making: Evidence from a state-owned enterprise in Indonesia. Management, 20(1), 159-172.
• Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996a). When are n heads better (or worse) than one? Biased judgments in individuals and groups. In E.H. Witte & J.H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action By Small Groups. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996b). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103(4), 687-719. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.103.4.687
• Klonek, F. E., Kanse, L., Wee, S., Runneboom, C., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Did the COVID-19 lock-down make us better at working in virtual teams? Small Group Research, 53(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211008991
• Kozioł-Nadolna, K., & Beyer, K. (2021). Determinants of the decision-making process in organizations, 25th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems, Procedia Computer Science 192(2021), 2375-2384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.006
• Kremer, M., Moritz, B., & Siemsen E. (2011). Demand forecasting behavior: System neglect and change detection. Management Science, 57(10) 1827-1843. https://doi.org/10.2307/41261977
• Larson, Jr., J. R. (2007). Deep diversity and strong synergy: modeling the impact of variability in members' problem-solving strategies on group problem-solving performance. Small Group Research, 38(3), 413-436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301972
• Lafferty, J. C., & Pond, A. W. (1974). The desert survival situation: [problem]: a group decision making experience for examining and increasing individual and team effectiveness. Plymouth: Human Synergistics.
• Laughlin, P. R., Gonzales, C. M., & Sommer, D. (2003). Quantity estimations by groups and individuals: Effects of known domain boundaries. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 7(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.7.1.55
• Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 754-774. https://doi.org/10.2307/255943
• Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002
• Lorscheid, I., & Meyer, M. (2021). Toward a better understanding of team decision processes: Combining laboratory experiments with agent-based modeling. Journal of Business Economics, 91(3), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-021-01052-x
• Mączyński, J. (1996). Partycypacja w podejmowaniu decyzji. Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
• Meslec, N., & Curşeu, P. L. (2013). Too close or too far hurts: Cognitive distance and group cognitive synergy. Small Group Research, 44(5), 471-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413491988
• Meslec, N., Curseu, P. L., Meeus, M. T. H., & Fodor, O. C. (2014). When none of us perform better than all of us together: The role of analogical decision rules in groups. PLoS One 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085232
• Miner Jr., F. C. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90014-X
• Nazari, R., Fallahnejad, A., & Fard, M. M. (2022). Achieving sustainable job performance of employees through transformational leadership and employee participation. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, 13(3), 162-175. https://doi.org/10.23925/2179-3565.2022v13i3p162-175
• Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 281-292, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4.
• Nwosu, H., Okoh, M., & Goodluck, A. (2020). Employees' participation in decision making and employees' productivity. International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.33642/ijbass.v6n3p6
• Okaka, W. T., Okongo, W., & Onen, D. (2023). Creating transparent decision-making. In W. T. Okaka (Ed.), Effective University Policy Decisions for Sustainable Academic Outputs, Lambert Academic Publishing (LAP).
• Ordóñez, L. D., Lehman Benson III, & Pittarello, A. (2015). Time pressure perception and decision making. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. NJ: The Wiley-Blackwell.
• Rathnayake, U. (2017). Employee participation in decision making. IPM Sri Lanka, 6, 8-10.
• Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Lowe, C. A. (1992). The stepladder technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 730-737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.730
• Rutka, R. (2007). Efektywność uspołecznienia procesu decyzyjnego. Przegląd Organizacji, 6, 6-9. https://doi.org/10.33141/po.2007.06.01
• Saenz-Royo, C., & Lozano-Rojo, A. (2023). Authoritarianism versus participation in innovation decisions. Technovation, 124, 102741, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102741
• Sanz de Acedo Lizárraga, M.L, Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M.T., & Cardelle-Elawar, M. (2007). Factors that affect decision making: Gender and age differences. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(3), 381-391.
• Schafer, M., & Crichlow, S. (2010). Groupthink Versus High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Schilling, M. S., Oeser, N., & Schaub, C. (2007). How effective are decision analyses? Assessing decision process and group alignment effects. Decision Analysis, 4(4), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1070.0101
• Selart, M. (2005). Understanding the role of locus of control in consultative decision-making: A case study. Management Decision, 43(3), 397-412. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510589779
• Shyi-Ming, Ch., & Bing-Han, T. (2015). Autocratic decision making using group recommendations based on the OWA operator and correlation coefficients. Information Sciences 290, 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.08.032
• Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control trust and its substitutes' effects on managers' involving employees in decision making. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 155-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199242003
• Sutter, M., Kocher, M. & Strauss, S. (2009). Individuals and teams in auctions. Oxford Economic Papers, 61, 380-394.
• Takemura, K. (2021). Escaping from Bad Decisions. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816032-9.00024-7
• Tindale, R. S., Kameda, T., & Hinsz V. B. (2003). Group decision making. In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.). Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Töre, E. & Uysal, O. K. (2022). The effect of empowering leadership on participation in decision-making. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 7(18), 1042-1063. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.434
• Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske & G. Lindsey (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed. Vol. 2). Boston: McGraw Hill.
• Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, ... Teevan, J. (2021). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4
• Zieleniewski, J. (1976). Organizacja zespołów ludzkich. Wstęp do teorii organizacji i kierowania. Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Identyfikatory

DOI

doi.org/10.7341/20231935