Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus

Schweiger, David M.; Sandberg, William C.; Ragan, James W.

doi:10.5465/255859

Cited by 146 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, it may be more effective to encourage debate around issues relating to the process of getting work done using techniques such as dialectical inquiry (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986) or by encouraging conflict either by instructions (Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncalo, 2004) or by building shared norms that permit the expression of alternative viewpoints (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001;Goncalo & Staw, 2006). Our results inform such strategies by identifying both the form of conflict that might be unduly suppressed and the period of time during which such conflicts might not emerge, but should, if the group is to perform effectively.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time

Goncalo

Polman

Maslach

2010

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups with a strong sense of collective efficacy set more challenging goals, persist in the face of difficulty, and are ultimately more likely to succeed than groups who do not share this belief. Given the many advantages that may accrue to groups who are confident, it would be logical to advise groups to build a high level of collective efficacy as early as possible. However, we draw on Whyte's (1998) theory of collective efficacy and groupthink, to predict that when confidence emerges at a high level toward the beginning of a group's existence, group members may be less likely to engage in process conflict; a form of conflict that may be beneficial in the early phase of a group project. We found support for this prediction in two longitudinal studies of classroom project teams. Groups with a strong sense of collective efficacy set more challenging goals, persist in the face of difficulty, and are ultimately more likely to succeed than groups who do not share this belief.Given the many advantages that may accrue to groups who are confident, it would be logical to advise groups to build a high level of collective efficacy as early as possible. However, we draw on Whyte's (1998) theory of collective efficacy and groupthink, to predict that when confidence emerges at a high level toward the beginning of a group's existence, group members may be less likely to engage in process conflict; a form of conflict that may be beneficial in the early phase of a group project. We found support for this prediction in two longitudinal studies of classroom project teams.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time

Goncalo

Polman

Maslach

2010

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature on innovation, combining or rearranging existing but different pieces of reality is considered as a key element of generating innovative ideas (for a review, see Kanter, 1988). In addition, research in the field of group decision making suggests that cognitive diversity may produce high-quality innovative decisions through "critical and investigative interaction processes in which team members identify, extract, and synthesize their different perspectives" (Amason, 1996: 124; see also Cosier & Schwenk, 1990;Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986;Schweiger, Sandberg & Rechner, 1989;Schwenk, 1990). On the other hand, demographic and cognitive group diversity could have detrimental effects.…”

Section: General Findings From the Group Diversity Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation

Vegt

Janssen

2003

Journal of Management

437

363

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This questionnaire study among 343 members of 41 work teams in a financial services organization examined the effects of individual team members' perceived task interdependence and perceived goal interdependence on innovative behavior in teams characterized by different levels of group diversity. Multilevel analyses revealed that individual's perceived task and goal interdependence were not related to innovative behavior in homogeneous teams. In heterogeneous teams, however, task interdependence was strongly and positively related to innovative behavior for individuals who perceived high levels of goal interdependence, and unrelated to innovative behavior for those who perceived low levels of goal interdependence.

show abstract

“…This ability to absorb equivocal inputs during strategic marketing decision-making serves as a basis for market-focused strategic flexibility, which is an organizational ability to respond to perceived market change. Prior research confirms that superior decisions are best arrived at when multiple meanings can interact rather than when differing views never surface (Schwenk, 1989;Schweiger and Sandberg, 1989;Schweiger et al, 1986). Thus, equivocality creates instability and raises questions that precipitate change.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 87%

Achieving adaptive ends through equivocality: A study of organizational antecedents and consequences

Neill¹,

Rose²

2007

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confronting complex situations is the hallmark of strategic decision-making. While these situations may be perceived as equivocal, organizations must cope, act, and thrive within such ambiguities. This study explores the manifestation and regulation of equivocality during strategic marketing decision-making. The results indicate that organizations that tolerate ambiguity perceive greater equivocality in problem situations and exhibit greater adaptive behavior; however, the findings come with a caveat: while experienced firms may enjoy these benefits, the situation is more complex for firms with limited product-market knowledge.Keywords: Marketing decisions; Equivocality; Innovation; Performance; Knowledge In dynamic environments, understanding is transitory. Given the novel, complex, and indefinite nature of strategic decisions (Mintzberg et al., 1976), organizations may benefit from an open and broad interpretive capability in order to effectively model and adapt to external forces. Formulaic thinking is better suited to closed-systems where maintenance and stability are present and learning is not necessary. The challenge is in managing and remaining attuned to the equivocal inputs that manifest during strategic decision-making in information intensive environ ments while not succumbing to equivocality's befuddling effect. While prior studies (e.g., Day, 1994;Sinkula et al., 1997) suggest that the organization should broaden its perception and be open-minded, unresolved is the mechanism that allows for the emergence of equivocality without succumbing to its disorient ing nature, which might dampen performance.This study examines the relationship between organizational interpretation and action by capturing both the emergence and effect of equivocality during strategic marketing decisionmaking. The paper directly examines equivocality and its ante cedents and consequences. Equivocality is defined as a problem situation with multiple, possibly contradictory, interpretations that manifest during decision-making (Daft and Lengel, 1986). When viewed as interpretation systems (Daft and Weick, 1984), organizations may be challenged when confronted with equivo cality. Thus, several questions guide this research: 1) what are the organizational levers to equivocality and strategic change? 2) how do organizations regulate equivocality during strategic marketing decision-making? and 3) what are the consequences of equivocality? To examine these questions, we first present a conceptual framework and develop hypotheses, then describe the study method. After reporting the analyses and results, we discuss the study's findings, limitations, and implications.

show abstract

Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus

Cited by 146 publications

References 28 publications

Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time

Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time

Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation

Achieving adaptive ends through equivocality: A study of organizational antecedents and consequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About