This is a guest article written by two partners of Neurofied: Francesco Chevallard (digital transformation & change expert) and Haris Mexas (ICF-certified coach). They previously wrote an article together on Emotional Intelligence in Leadership which we highly recommend you to read. In this new article, they explore group decision-making, especially in the context of cooperation and teamwork.

On Group Decision-Making

Have you ever felt stuck on a team where decisions feel pre-ordained, and your voice gets sidelined? This scenario, unfortunately, is all too common. 

Centralized decision-making, where one or two leaders call the shots, can lead to a facade of agreement that crumbles when reality hits. You end up wasting time, resources, and morale with plans that could have been better from the start, if a true discussion had taken place. Let’s explore why fostering collaboration and inclusivity is the key to unlocking a team’s true potential.

Well-managed groups that focus on these two principles (collaboration and inclusivity) achieve excellent results. For leaders, refining group management techniques has very clear advantages: effective teams tend to both a) deliver better outcomes and b) enhance leadership credibility and organizational health. 

Understanding why some groups succeed where others falter can empower you to significantly improve your team’s group decision-making process, thereby transforming potential challenges into opportunities for growth and innovation.

In this article, we will provide a succinct overview of the science underpinning effective teamwork in decision-making contexts. We will delve into:

1. Relevant aspects of group behavior dynamics
2. Practical ways to foster an environment conducive to active participation
3. Selection and refinement of ideas

1. Group behavior dynamics

In the 1960s and 1970s, Yale research psychologist Irving Janis studied the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the Bay of Pigs expedition in Cuba in 1961, which had both ended in disaster for the United States. Through his insightful analysis, Janis revealed the underlying psychological factors and group decision-making flaws that led to these failures. 

One of the key reasons, he argued, was the pervasive influence of groupthink within the teams responsible for evaluating the Japanese threat and the likelihood of success for the Cuban invasion. In both cases, a few dominant voices set the tone, and the rest of the group, fearing judgment and isolation, refrained from voicing their concerns. Although many individuals privately doubted the official conclusions, they each believed they were alone in their dissent and thus remained silent. This stifling of diverse perspectives and critical thinking led to disastrous outcomes.

This research has since inspired extensive studies into group behavior dynamics, consistently validating Janis’s insights. Groupthink is a genuine phenomenon that can drive teams toward suboptimal decisions by suppressing dissent.

Dissent is the key word here. To ensure your team makes effective decisions, it is crucial that each member feels empowered to express differing opinions. Encouraging and respecting contrasting voices fosters an environment where diverse perspectives are valued, leading to more robust and well-rounded decisions.

Implementing this principle presents significant challenges. Conformity is a powerful impulse in human behavior. We are wired to avoid standing out from the group: social isolation is one of the most painful experiences for our highly pro-social species. 

Social psychology explains this natural impulse through the concept of the bandwagon effect: our tendency to follow what others are doing, which intensifies as we see more people thinking or acting a certain way.

A majority of people behaving similarly can in fact lead individuals to discard evidence from their own senses, a phenomenon strikingly demonstrated in Solomon Asch’s experiments from the 1950s. In these studies, participants were asked to match line lengths in a group setting where experiment collaborators intentionally gave incorrect answers. Despite the correct choice being very clear, approximately one-third of participants conformed to the group’s incorrect consensus, highlighting the powerful effect of social influence. 

Janis and Asch’s work underscore the importance of taking social forces into account when striving for a more informed leadership approach. In the next section we will take a look at practical steps that you can undertake in order to apply this learning when managing teams.

2. Fostering an environment for active participation

As demonstrated by Janis’s and Asch’s research, understanding and mitigating the effects of groupthink and social conformity is essential for effective group decision-making in a team. A truly outstanding team thrives on the collective synergy of all its members. Success is about harnessing the diverse strengths and perspectives within the group. Every voice matters, and every contribution counts.

To achieve this dynamic, the first step is to liberate employees from the fear of expressing their opinion. Encouraging an atmosphere where dissent is valued is crucial. This involves actively promoting open dialogue and creating a safe space where team members feel confident that their viewpoints will be respected.

Leadership Professor Amy Edmondson’s pivotal research on psychological safety reveals its transformative power within organizations. Through extensive studies and real-world observations, she discovered that teams where members felt safe to take interpersonal risks outperformed those where fear was prevalent. By analyzing team interactions across various industries, she managed to demonstrate that psychological safety leads to higher levels of innovation and effectiveness. 

So how does an informed leader create and sustain such an environment? We’d like to put forward the following guidelines inspired by Edmondson’s psychological safety framework:

A. Set the stage

A team leader should establish the context by outlining the task and highlighting its purpose. Cultivate safety by explaining that failure is inevitable: it needs to be acknowledged for learning and growth. Shed light on the need for voice by highlighting the complexity and error-prone nature of the task that needs to be accomplished. Use rhetoric that will shift the focus from personal blame to collective success. Additionally, illustrate the significance of the work and identify who will be impacted by it, helping team members align more closely with the organization’s vision.

B. Stimulate participation

Once the stage is set, it is crucial to further work on the creation of a safe atmosphere by inviting team members to participate more. People are reluctant to share their ideas if their leader seems to believe they have all the answers. Adopting a learning mindset, which combines humility with curiosity, can alleviate this hesitation. For leaders, this means admitting to mistakes and recognizing areas where they can improve. Edmondson calls this competence situational humility.

This mindset should be reflected in the practice of inquiry. Cultivating genuine interest in others’ input is a powerful leadership skill. The key concept here is “cultivation”. This is not something you have or you lack. It’s something you keep becoming better at as you practice it. Effective inquiry also involves formulating the right questions. Coaching training can be a productive way to practice how to ask questions that empower conversation partners and lead to creative solutions. The common thread of this type of questioning is positive language, focus on the future and turning vision into action.

Participation can be enhanced on a more systemic level by setting up relevant structures and processes. Consider the following indicative examples:

• Open door policies. Establish an open door policy where team members can approach leaders at any time to discuss ideas or issues.
• Decision-Making Committees. Form committees for key group decision-making processes that include representatives from different levels and departments within the organization.
• Anonymous brainstorming sessions. Instead of having to defend one’s own thoughts in front of the entire team, each member will write their ideas anonymously.  These will then be pooled together and evaluated by the whole team without identifying their author.
• Role assignment. During a team discussion, task each member to discuss an idea from a specific point of view, regardless of their own personal convictions. This allows them to express opinions that are not tied to their individuality or their regular job description, allowing them to feel more comfortable and open in their communication.

C. Respond productively

Cultivating a safe environment for individuals to voice their views also involves producing thoughtful responses to team members’ contributions. Here are three key practices for leaders to consider: 

• Express Appreciation: Actively listen to your team members, acknowledge their input, and express gratitude for their genuine contributions. For example, if a team member suggests a new marketing strategy, even if it’s not adopted, you should thank them for their creative effort. This habit can create better overall results by making everyone feel valued, even if their specific input is not factored into the final decision. By thanking team members for their ideas and efforts, you reinforce a culture of mutual respect and recognition. This approach encourages ongoing participation and innovation.
• Destigmatize Failure: Following the same rationale as when you set the stage, aim to shift the focus from past mistakes to future opportunities. When errors occur, look forward by offering support and collaboratively brainstorming next steps. Role model these practices, even if this means that you have to take interpersonal risks you are not yet comfortable with. This approach helps team members see failures as learning experiences. It thus promotes a growth mindset within the team.
• Sanction Clear Violations: Maintaining psychological safety within the team requires addressing potentially harmful or careless behavior fairly. Rather than creating a hostile atmosphere, fair responses to violations ensure a safe and productive environment for all team members.

Once your team members feel comfortable speaking up freely and can generate new ideas, it’s time to advance to the next phase: selecting, refining, and rigorously testing these ideas.

3. Selection and refinement of ideas

Selecting the right idea begins with a thorough evaluation of all proposed concepts, focusing on the criteria that are relevant for your service or product. To make sure your evaluation is objective, assign a numerical weight value to each criterion. If we take the example of a marketing campaign, possible criteria with their respective weight values could look as follows:

• Return on investment: 30%
• Cost: 20%
• Effort: 15%
• Time: 15%
• Risk: 10%
• Quality: 10%

This is the Weighted Scoring Model and allows you to prioritize among the different concepts proposed. For simpler projects, a less time-consuming approach is Multivoting: team members vote on their preferred ideas, helping to identify the most promising options.

A relevant insight gained through behavioral science is the importance of cognitive diversity in group decision-making. Research by Scott E. Page, author of The Diversity Bonus, shows that teams with diverse perspectives consistently outperform more homogeneous groups in problem-solving tasks. It is thus beneficial to encourage a variety of viewpoints by involving team members with different backgrounds in the selection process. This  enhances the quality of the decision and simultaneously increases the likelihood of innovative solutions emerging.

Diversity creates contrasts, which in turn lead to more mature concepts. Creating contrasts is a valuable guiding principle that can be leveraged not only in order to produce superior ideas but also when fine-tuning a chosen course of action. At this stage, the contrast mechanism allows any overlooked aspects of the selected idea to be addressed before the implementation phase.

Consider the following techniques that directly target the creation of contrasts:

• A relatively effortless approach is to appoint a devil’s advocate. This involves assigning a team member to articulate the opposing viewpoint, regardless of their personal beliefs. Their role is to vehemently challenge the team’s idea. This results in robust critiques that strengthen the proposal.

• Cross-pollination involves dividing the group into smaller teams, each tasked with developing their own implementation plan based on the initial idea. This approach yields multiple variations of the same core concept, allowing for comparison to reveal potential weaknesses in the original idea. This method can also be applied during the idea generation phase.

• Red-blue team interventions work by splitting the team into two groups: one is tasked with defending the original idea, while the other critiques it. We have discussed this technique in detail in a previous article on the Neurofied blog. Ultimately, both teams collaborate to develop a unified solution, following a thorough evaluation of the pros and cons identified during the process.

It’s essential to handle these techniques with care to prevent the team from fragmenting into competing subgroups that may resist collaboration. Ensure that your team members fully grasp their roles and objectives. Both the devil’s advocate and sub-team assignments are most effective when rotated regularly: this prevents individuals from becoming entrenched in specific positions.

Conclusion on Group Decision-Making

Group decision making can be particularly challenging. We are naturally drawn to agree with dominant opinions, especially in the presence of authority figures. Psychological tendencies such as the bandwagon effect and the confirmation bias make it harder to properly evaluate and critique ideas. By understanding these dynamics and implementing effective strategies, leaders can transform their teams into high-performing units. 

Once you have harnessed the full power of your team members, you will notice a significant shift in the quality and creativity of the ideas generated. Embracing diverse perspectives and fostering an environment of psychological safety will lead to more innovative solutions and better problem-solving. Regularly evaluating and refining your group decision-making processes ensures continuous improvement and adaptability in a dynamic business landscape. By prioritizing collaboration and inclusivity, you not only enhance team performance but also build a stronger, more resilient organization poised for long-term success.

We hope you found this guest article by Francesco Chevallard and Haris Mexas on group decision-making useful. If you’re looking for a behavioral business partner to drive change in your organization, we’d be happy to schedule a call. Want to learn more about the application of brain and behavioral insights in management, HR, growth and innovation? Then read our blog or check out our YouTube channel!

About Neurofied

Neurofied is a behavioral science company specialized in training, consulting, and change management. We help organizations drive evidence-based and human-centric change with insights and interventions from behavioral psychology and neuroscience. Consider us your behavioral business partner who helps you build behavioral change capabilities internally.

Since 2018, we have trained thousands of professionals and worked with over 100 management, HR, growth, and innovation teams of organizations such as Johnson & Johnson, KPMG, Deloitte, Novo Nordisk, ABN AMRO, and the Dutch government. We are also frequent speakers at universities and conferences.

Our mission is to democratize the value of behavioral science for teams and organizations. If you see any opportunities to collaborate, please contact us here.