Group-level integrative complexity: Enhancing differentiation and integration in group decision-making

Abstract

Decision-making in organizations is often complex and involves groups, which have access to the pool of perspectives and knowledge their members hold individually. However, groups frequently fail to use their full decision-making potential. The concept of integrative complexity (IC) captures how complex decision-making profits from the differentiation and integration of diverse perspectives and knowledge. In a laboratory experiment with 4 conditions ( N = 12 groups of 4 students per condition), we found that group dissent enhanced differentiation and a stepwise recapitulation of the group discussion enhanced integration, thereby raising group-level IC. Dissent groups who performed a stepwise recapitulation reached the highest levels of group IC compared to ordinary dissent groups, consent groups, and individuals working alone. They also exceeded their own best member and achieved an equal level of IC to that of the best members of nominal groups. The study contributes to the body of research identifying factors that support groups in exploiting their potential and reaching more informed decisions and judgments.

Get Complicated: The Effects of Complexity on Conversations over Potentially Intractable Moral Conflicts

“…Research has repeatedly shown that lower in comparison with higher levels of integrative complexity are associated with increases in conflict escalation (Suedfeld & Leighton, 2002;Tetlock, 1985), aggressive acts (Satterfield, 1998), competitive strategies (Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014;Walker & Watson, 1994), tension and stress (Suedfeld, 1992;, violence (Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Ramirez, 1977), and international crises (Ballard, 1983;Suedfeld & Bluck, 1988;. In contrast, higher levels of integrative complexity have been shown to be related to more cooperative agreements, peaceful resolutions (Koo, Han, & Kim, 2002;Liht, Suedfeld, & Krawczyk, 2005;Winter, 2007) and constructive inter-and intra-group processes (Brodbeck, Kugler, Fischer, Heinze, & Fischer, 2020;Park & DeShon, 2018). Hypothesis 1.…”

“…Different types of manipulations should be tested in future studies. For example, different levels of integrative complexity could be induced by presenting texts about topics unrelated to the focus of discussion, by conflict-facilitation techniques like the constructive controversy (Johnson et al, 2006), or through interactive discussion structures (Brodbeck et al, 2020). Furthermore, differences in the complexity of participants' emotions or behaviors could be manipulated in addition to their cognitions, which could have implications for the duration and sustainability of the induced effects.…”

“…Thus, interventions could be designed and validated that specifically tackle individuals or groups levels of cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral complexity (cf. Brodbeck et al, 2020).…”

Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst

“…The questionnaire assessing participants' feelings and perceptions of the conflict scenario consisted of five scales: satisfaction with the relationship to the other party (four items), perceptions of mutuality between parties (three items), satisfaction with the interpersonal processes (four items), perceived attainment of one's own goals (three items), and satisfaction with the approach to the conflict (three items). The items were created by the authors for the purpose of this study but build on items used by Brodbeck et al (2011) as well as Kugler et al (2011).…”

Group decision quality, conscientiousness and competition

“…However, the role of personality in group decision making has less been studied. These few studies include examining the role of the following personality dimensions in group-level decision making: dominance, personality types in computer-mediated group environments, personality in agent-based group decision making, personality traits of group decision leaders and followers, agreeableness in risky group decision making, integrative complexity personality traits, and personality traits in the social dilemma context (Brodbeck et al, 2021); Callaway et al, 1985;Santos et al, 2011;Thatcher & De La Cour, 2003;Wang et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2021;Zheng, 2018). For this reason, the personality trait of group members is the first focus of this study.…”