The organizational voting process has different levels. In every organization, there is a need to have effective consensus on the decision-making process. The organizations try to build ways and means for conclusive decision-making(Swap,78) There are several methods and mechanisms of voting. One type of voting system is dictatorship-type voting. This type of voting occurs when the consensus is bypassed. Some people have more power and say within the organizational environment. They try to impose their whim and wit on others as well. It usually causes several changes to the accepted mechanism. The dictatorship type of decision-making is not favored. It causes several challenges. The decision arrived at through the prowess of a singular person may have logic and rationality. But it is devoid of the generalized consensus. The decisions where popular support is lacking, the efficiency of the decision-making is diminished. It needs to be equipped through a colossal agreement among the members(Swap,78). The voting procedure in the organization should work towards attaining Conesus on a rational basis.
The Process of Decision Making In Groups:
The Voting Mechanism In Groups:
The decision-making process in the groups is salubrious and incessant. The social psychological perspective argues that the decisions within the groups are not independent. Human interaction has a vivid role to play in formulating the opinion(Swap,78). People interact and reach on mutual consensus. The interaction among people can be of two types. The first is the competitive type and the second is cooperation. But the group decision-making is more superlative than individual decision-making. Several perspectives must be kept in mind in this regard. Firstly, the groups have a collective memory. The errors within the group think are easily identifiable. People working within the group can easily detect the issues. Secondly, the interaction of the group members leads to the generation of new knowledge and ideas(Swap,45). They can actively participate in nuanced communication. Their mutual discords can easily be tamed.
Besides, the group as a community can more profoundly handle and decipher the underlying errors. It is easy for the group members to resolve mutual problems through the process of dialogue and debate. Besides, the group members can increase the level and volume of the shared information. They can properly work to reinforce the level of the information (Swap,48).
Factors Having Influence In The Group Decision Making:
Several factors have different degrees of influence on group decision-making. The nature and purpose of the group are the most deliberative type. The group members share an underlying bond. The composition of the group plays a vital part in resolving the issues. Whereas the groups have no singular level of mutual cohesiveness. The composition and attributes of the groups make them unique. It is pertinent to note that the phenomenon of group think is also prevalent in socially connected. The members of such a group have close connections. They are positively linked with each other. The leader of these groups has the ability and capability to tackle the situation. They can easily revive the agenda of the group. There is lower space for dissent within the ranks of the group. In such groups, there is little room for derivative information (Swap, 1984).
Sticking To Past Experience:
Members usually stick to one line of argument. Because the dissent is crushed and quashed by other participants. The conformity pressure has an evident role in the groupthink. As the members try to remain part of the decisions. The severe threats of the rebuke and rebuttal are real. Therefore, the group think succeeds(Swap,98). The people who are not conformists can adjust and move along the group. Sometimes the group can also fail because of its eventual fallacies. The lack of internal check and balance in the decision-making causes the group to fall nefariously under its weight.
The Team Spirit In The Decision Making:
The team spirit is the ability of the members of the team to share the ideas. Their mutual agreement is necessary for the successful operationalization of the decisions. The strength of the decisions usually depends on the level of mutual agreement among the participants. There are several cantankerous benefits of the team spirit within the groups. The team spirit can be found in any type of organization. Yet the benefits remain consistent. Firstly, the team spirit ensures that there is salubrious and nimble trust among the workers(Swap,98). They would share the ideas. There would be a lack of palace politics in the realm of their organizations. Secondly, the productivity within the organization is also increased because of the team spirit.
People would come closer to each other. They would build a relationship of trust and confidence. The underlying causes of the disagreement become less evident when there is a strong team spirit. Thirdly, the process of communication is also effective when the mutual discords are not ambiguous. The team members would easily accept the difference of opinion as a priori (Swap, 1984). They would try to pay heed to the conflicting arguments. Overall, it leads to a process of seamless communication(Swap,98). Fourthly, the level of motivation and dedication among the team members is also at a higher place. So, the chances of workplace success are quite reasonable.
Contrary to this, there can be some erroneous issues of the team spirit as well in the organizations. The first is personality clashes among the team members. There are chances that underlying causes may reduce the working capability of the people within the organization. The second scandalous issue could be the emergence of blame and responsibility. People would accuse each other. They would try to shift responsibility from one to and another. The underlying motivation may keep them away from each other. The lack of new ideas can also emerge from such a fiasco. All of the problems associated with the team spirit are of lesser importance. The benefits are more pronounced(Swap,98). The people working in the team environment gain more and lose less. Their organizations are also entitled to reap a higher degree of benefits.
Social Utility In the Group Decision Making:
The concept of group decision-making is not simple. In every group, people make decisions based on their decisions. And the system of reaching a specific preference is understood as a utility. The value of the utility for everyone is different. Two persons can not agree on the singular marginal value of a decision. The behavior, values, and norms affect the decisions of people to a certain extent. People must remain vigilant of the internal voices to reach a conclusive decision. Whereas the concept of utility is intrinsic in human nature. (Swap, 45). Soevery concept and idea related to the utility would be based on abstractions. It would rely on effectively both normative and positivist. Yet, the theorists argue it is more tilted towards the positivist touch. Because this concept is deciphered through individual preferences and choices.
On the other hand, the utility functions of the choices which people make are different. Some of the choices can be more pronounced than others. They take more time, energy, and resources from the people dealing with them. Others were less ghastly and appalling. To properly contextualize, the concept of the utility is divided into two types(Swap,98). The first is cardinal utility. It deals with the absolute level of the satisfaction with the situation and scenario. The second one is ordinal. It relates to the comparative analysis of the utility.
Contrary to this, the concept of voting is also based on choices. The group members have different tastes and preferences. Group usually does not act together. There can be certain disagreements among the members. People could have various objectives attached to the decisions. They may not share a similar perspective. So, they would voice differently. It is usually believed that the group members have an associated level of utility with the group decisions. They rank decisions as per their expectations. The group decision is a collective group property that is shared by every member. They have to believe and react to the choices in different ways. On the other hand, the group think can not be devoid of the collective utility(Swap, 49).
The unfairness in the group decisions is not an acceptable norm. People question the effectiveness of any group decision which is not based on the norms and values adhered to by most of the group members. So, the concept of fairness has a proper value in group decision-making. Contrary to it, it must be considered that the fairness of the group decision is not a choice. It is essential for the group to lament and shun the anomalies in the group choices (Swap, 1984). There should be refrain from invalid decision choices. As the results of such actions could be determinantal and lackadaisical for the survival of the unity of the group.
Group Decision Making
Group decision-making is a diatribe process. It is not unilinear and simple in its action and approach. Various internal and external factors have a classic impact on the quality of the decisions within a group. Some of the factors which have an overriding impact on the group decisions are enlisted as.
The first crucial factor is past experience. People try to assimilate the past when results had been conducive. On the other hand, the gloomy past is abhorred and shunned. The experience convinces and determines the future course of action to a certain degree. People try to view the future in the side mirror of the past. The group leaders also persuade the participants to reflect on the past. The voting patterns within the organizations also shift and tilt towards the past experiences surrounding the groups.(Swap, 49)
In addition, the group decisions are also marred by the cognitive biases of the participants. People do not have singular notions of the actions. There are several types of biases flowing through the group information processing. The omission bias is related to snubbing and purging the information. The organizational environment convinces participants to hid the information. Similarly, there is a confirmation bias as well. People try to locate their expected results in various decisions. They relate it with the past. Similarly, the belief bias is also a lackadaisical perspective. It causes uncertainty of the decision because of the reliance on flawed past information.
Moreover, believing in irrational commitments and past knowledge is rapacious for group decision-making. The believers in such concepts try to lend more attention to the past. They overlook and nullify the existing situation. In the end, the results are not conclusive. Group can not reach a glorious decision. The chances of rebukes and rebuttals become more appendant. So, the fatal failure cannot be avoided. In such a situation, an incessant blame game ensued. It counters actively damages the group in the long run(Swap,49).
Now, there is a comprehensive need to properly understand the process of the groups. Groups are part and parcel of the private and public sector organizations (Swap, 1984). These are bodies through which the work of the government attains a specific level of credibility. In this section, the groups would be properly debated and their different ideas would also be explored.
The group task model is inevitable for the normal functioning of the groups. In every group, one person has to formalize and actualize the proper conduct of the group members. Such group members are known as initiators. Because the command of the decisions flow through them. The person having the responsibilities of the collaborator investigates the facts and develops mutual connections among the members. For every successful group, there is always a need for a critic. A critic is a person who uses wit and whim to logically analyze the decisions within the group. Their responsibility to safeguard the interests of the group from massive collapse. The group testers use different workable techniques. Their role is simply to analyze the impact of the decision on the related people.
On the other hand, successful groups are in dire need of proper modifications and changes. The person assigned the role of the harmonizer tries to evaporate the mutual tensions among the group members. A proper consensus and agreement are developed. Besides, the role of the gatekeeper is simply to keep the flow of information among the group members in check. There is also a need to have a compromiser in the group. Because the compromiser would reduce the underlying tensions among the group members.(Swap, 94)
Contrary to it, groups have different problems. Such issues run through their structure and system. The problems can reduce the speed and agility of the group. The impact has a volatile effect on the efficacy of the groups(Swap, 106). There is a need to properly decipher the mechanisms through which the tensions and issues in the groups can be shunned and eliminated. Usually, there are two broader categories of solutions available at the disposal of the group leaders. These are critical thinking and creative thinking. Both of the solutions aim for the same results. Yet, their means and mechanism to arrive at the conclusions can be variable (Swap, 1984). Creative thinking is further classified into two broader categories. These are divergent and convergent thinking approaches. Whereas the context of creative thinking is somehow different. For instance, it uses fantasy, insight, and intuition.
Conclusion:
Groups are complex and intricate entities. The decision-making process within the groups is usually diverse. Several factors have an overarching and overcalling influence on the decisions. The groups’ leaders must be aware of the consequences of the decisions. There is no simple mechanism to resolve the causes concerning the groups. Success and fruitful results in the groups can be attained through team spirit.(Swap, 106) Yet, there should be struggled to avoid over-reliance on groupthink. Moderate means to reach the decisions should be adopted. The ineffective rules, procedures, and methods which reduce the worth of the consensus base decision should be eliminated. In this regard, mutual agreement among the group members is pivotal.
The apporches of decision making change with aberrations in the circumstances. People having stakes in the organizations behave distinctively in the organizations settings. The role of the leadership is essential and inevitable to reach highly mechanized decisions. The problematic issues ought to be resolved at the first level. Then a consensus must be developed on the problems concerning the majority of the group. The elimination of the least acceptable solutions should follow. It would raise the prospects for a comprehensive decision. The commodious engagement of the stakeholders is required to lead the decisions into success.(Swap, 106)
References
Swap, W. C. (1984). Group Decision Making . The Univeristy of Queensland .