scholarly journals Judgment and Decision Making in Teams

Management ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guihyun Park ◽  
Verlin B. Hinsz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Team Processes ◽  
Distributed Information ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Team Outcomes ◽  
Team Decision ◽  
Knowledge Bias ◽  
Learning Team

As organizations increasingly adopt team-based systems, team judgment and decision making are often preferred ways of making decisions compared to individual decision making. Teams are considered to have a greater potential to make a higher quality decision compared to individuals because teams can utilize a larger pool of information, team members can correct each other’s error, and team discussion can facilitate team processes that enhance team outcomes such as learning. Team judgment and decision making, however, are known to be subject to potential pitfalls such as polarization, common knowledge bias, and conformity pressures. This article summarizes team judgment and decision making from an information processing perspective in which information distributed among team members and interaction dynamics among team members (i.e., discussion, deliberation) determine the mechanisms whereby distributed information is expressed and elaborated and whereby it influences the ultimate team decision or judgment as discussed in The Emerging Conceptualization of Groups as Information Processors. Accordingly, studies on team judgment and decision making focus on processes whereby team members reach a team decision or judgment and the different factors that could make the team processes more effective. The current review attempts to achieve a balance in emphasis by including topics that are of interest both to academics as well as to practitioners of team judgment and decision making.

The Influence of Team Goal Alignment and Awareness on Human-Centered Design Team Decision-Making Strategy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek Rao ◽  
Ananya Krishnan ◽  
Jieun Kwon ◽  
Euiyoung Kim ◽  
Alice Agogino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Personal Goals ◽  
Design Team ◽  
Design Teams ◽  
Goal Alignment ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Team Decision Making ◽  
Student Teams ◽  
Team Decision ◽  
Team Alignment

Abstract Design team decision-making underpins all activities in the design process. Simultaneously, goal alignment within design teams has been shown to be essential to the success of team activities, including engineering design. However, the relationship between goal alignment and design team decision-making remains unclear. In this exploratory work, we analyze six student design teams’ decision-making strategies underlying 90 selections of design methods over the course of a human-centered design project. We simultaneously examine how well each design team’s goals are aligned in terms of their perception of shared goals and their awareness of team members’ personal goals at the midpoint and end of the design process, along with three other factors underpinning team alignment at the midpoint. We report three preliminary findings about how team goal alignment and goal awareness influence team decision-making strategy that, while lacking consistent significance, invite further research. First, we observe that a decrease in awareness of team members’ personal goals may lead student teams to use a different distribution of decision-making strategies in design than teams whose awareness stays constant or increases. Second, we find that student teams exhibiting lower overall goal alignment scores appear to more frequently use agent-driven decision-making strategies, while student teams with higher overall goal alignment scores appear to more frequently use process-driven decision-making strategies. Third, we find that while student team alignment appears to influence agent- and process-driven strategy selection, its effect on outcome-driven selection is less conclusive. While grounded in student data, these findings provide a starting place for further inquiry into of designerly behavior at the nexus of teaming and design decision-making.

Group Judgment and Decision Making in Auditing: Research in the Time of COVID-19 and Beyond

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim D. Bauer ◽  
Kerry A. Humphreys ◽  
Ken T. Trotman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Committee ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Group Judgment ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
New Research

The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed the ways auditors work and interact with team members and others in the financial reporting process. In particular, there has been a move away from face-to-face interactions to the use of virtual teams, with strong indications many of these changes will remain post-pandemic. We examine the impacts of the pandemic on group judgment and decision making (JDM) research in auditing by reviewing research on auditor interactions with respect to the review process (including coaching), fraud brainstorming, consultations within audit firms, and parties outside the audit firm such as client management and the audit committee. Through the pandemic lens and for each auditor interaction, we consider new research questions for audit JDM researchers to investigate and new ways of addressing existing research questions given these fundamental changes. We also identify potential impacts on research methods used to address these questions during the pandemic and beyond.

Managing Team Diversity in the Workplace

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maartje Schouten ◽  
Jasmien Khattab ◽  
Phoebe Pahng
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Categorization ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Team Diversity ◽  
Team Outcomes ◽  
Personality Diversity ◽  
Elaboration Model ◽  
Dysfunctional Conflict ◽  
Demographic Background ◽  
Main Effects

The study of team diversity has generated a large amount of research because of the changing nature of workplaces as they become more diverse and work becomes more organized around teams. Team diversity describes the variation among team members in terms of any attribute in which individuals may differ. Examples are demographic background diversity, functional or educational diversity, and personality diversity. Diversity can be operationalized as categorical (variety), continuous (separation), or vertical (disparity). Initial research on team diversity was dominated by a main-effects approach that produced two main perspectives: social-categorization scholars suggested that diversity hurts team outcomes, as it decreases feelings of cohesion and increases dysfunctional conflict, whereas the information and decision-making perspective suggested that diversity helps team outcomes, as it makes more information available in the team to help with decision-making. In an effort to integrate these disparate insights, the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) proposed that team diversity can lead both to social categorization and to information elaboration on the basis of contextual factors that may give rise to either process. The CEM has received widespread support in research, but a number of questions about the processes through which diversity has an effect on team outcomes remain.

scholarly journals An interprofessional approach to promoting autonomous decision-making for clients who are aphasic

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
Jessie Johnson ◽  
Sarah Westgate ◽  
Linda Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Deficits ◽  
Health Care Team ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Health Team ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Autonomous Decision ◽  
Team Decision ◽  
Reliable Methods ◽  
Limit Capacity

Often times interprofessional health care team members presume individuals with aphasia due to stroke lack the capacity to participate in and contribute to decision-making. This belief may hinder the client’s participation in the decision-making process. Two main impairments resulting from stroke, that impede communication and limit capacity for autonomous participation in decision-making, are aphasia and cognitive deficits. Reduced capacity for communication in the client with stroke, combined with complexity in health team dialogue and process, may further diminish the individual’s ability to engage in autonomous decision-making. Health team members need to use reliable methods and devise new methods which can more accurately measure capacity for autonomous decision-making. This review elucidates the necessity for (1) autonomous decision-making in persons with aphasia, (2) assessing the need for capacity, (3) concrete ways to assess cognitive function, and (4) interprofessional team decision-making.

How entrepreneurial team heterogeneity impacts decision-making performance? An input-process-output approach

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhipeng Zhang ◽  
Li Zhu ◽  
Gong Chen ◽  
Lu Shang ◽  
Qiuyun Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Seeking ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Team Interaction ◽  
Team Decision Making ◽  
Team Heterogeneity ◽  
Mediating Role ◽  
Entrepreneurial Team ◽  
Team Decision

Purpose Existing studies mostly rely on the static characteristics of team members, and there is still a lack of empirical investigation on how entrepreneurial team members make decisions through dynamic team process and how team members’ cognition influences team decision-making. The purpose of this study is to validate how entrepreneurial team heterogeneity affects team decision-making performance from the perspective of dynamic team process. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the theory of input-process-output model, this study proposed and examined the mediating role of team interaction as well as the moderating role of proactive socialization tactics in the relationship between entrepreneurial team heterogeneity and decision-making performance. Based on a sample of 162 entrepreneurial teams that include pairing superiors and subordinates, hierarchical regressions and moderated mediation tests were used to test the hypotheses. Findings The research results show that the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial teams is positively correlated with both team interaction and decision-making performance. Team interaction plays a mediating role between entrepreneurial team heterogeneity and decision-making performance; information seeking of proactive socialization tactics moderates the impact of entrepreneurial team heterogeneity on team interaction. Originality/value Contributing to the literature on entrepreneurial team decision-making performance, this study identifies that proactive socialization tactics with a high level of information seeking can help entrepreneurial team members respond to environmental and organizational changes more effectively during team development and increase the effectiveness of team interaction. This finding helps us better understand the mechanism and context under which entrepreneurial heterogeneity may enhance the team’s decision-making performance.

Discourse of Leadership

2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolanta Aritz ◽  
Robyn Walker ◽  
Peter Cardon ◽  
Zhang Li
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Social Function ◽  
Response Sequence ◽  
Leadership Roles ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Team Decision Making ◽  
Discourse Type ◽  
Team Decision

This study aims to more fully understand leadership when it is understood as primarily discursive in nature and coconstructed by those involved in interactions in which influence emerges. More specifically, it explores the performative role of questions as speech acts. In this case, we look at how questions are employed as a key discourse type to enable professionals to construct their authority and establish leadership roles. The data consist of transcripts of decision-making meetings. A scheme for coding the question-response sequence in conversation was used to identify the form, social function, and conversational sequence of question use. The questions then were analyzed by speaker and his or her role as leader versus nonleader. While questions can result in or encourage group collaboration by opening the discussion and inviting contributions, they can also be used to direct team members, seize the floor, and influence decision making. The study contributes to the study of leadership and team decision making by looking at how questions operate as a multifunctional discourse type, and how they are used to establish influence in decision-making meetings.

scholarly journals Virtual team learning: The role of collaboration process and technology affordance in team decision making

2016 ◽  
pp. 602-627 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Virtual Team ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Team Decision Making ◽  
Other Information ◽  
Technology Affordance ◽  
Team Decision ◽  
Study Teams ◽  
Collaboration Process

The study examines two dimensions that impact virtual team decision making. One is the influence of collaboration process structure: the sequences, patterns, and routines participants use to interact and solve problems. The other is technology affordance: the strengths and weaknesses of technologies in terms of the usefulness they offer to teams when performing tasks. Some teams used a structured collaboration process with monitoring, coordination, and backup functions during a decision-making discussion. Other teams had no discussion process instructions. In addition, some teams possessed stronger technology affordance including both chat and an editable document. Other teams used chat technology alone, which offered fewer collaboration possibilities. The collaboration process and technology affordance factors were tested in an experiment in which four-person online teams worked as a personnel hiring committee. Information about four job candidates was distributed to create a hidden profile in which some information was shared across all team members, while other information was visible only to specific members. Two hundred and eight students, comprising fifty-two teams completed the study. Teams using the structured collaboration process made more accurate and higher-quality decisions. In addition, scores were higher when technology affordance included both chat and editable document tools, but this influence was not significant.

scholarly journals Can mindfulness be helpful in team decision-making? A framework for understanding how to mitigate false consensus

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Selart ◽  
Vidar Schei ◽  
Rune Lines ◽  
Synnøve Nesse
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Team Processes ◽  
Team Decision Making ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
False Consensus ◽  
Team Decision ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
The Individual

Mindfulness has recently attracted a great deal of interest in the field of management. However, even though mindfulness – broadly viewed as a state of active awareness – has been described mainly at the individual level, it may also have important effects at aggregated levels. In this article, we adopt a team-based conceptualization of mindfulness, and develop a framework that represents the powerful effect of team mindfulness on facilitating effective decision-making. We further discuss how a conceptualization of team mindfulness may mitigate the process of false consensus by interacting positively with the following five central team processes: open-mindedness, participation, empowerment, conflict management, and value and ambiguity tolerance. A false consensus constitutes a cognitive bias, leading to the perception of a consensus that does not exist. In essence, we argue that, although a conceptualization of team mindfulness does not guarantee effective decision-making in itself, it may successfully reduce false consensus when coupled with these five team processes. Accordingly, this article contributes to the theory and practice of team decision-making by demonstrating how a conceptualization of team mindfulness can be helpful in the increasingly complex and ambiguous situations faced by contemporary teams.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document