THE EFFECTS OF TWO NORMATIVE STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS ON ESTABLISHED AND <i>AD HOC</i> GROUPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVING DECISION MAKING EFFECTIVENESS1

Nemiroff, Paul M.; Pasmore, William A.; Ford, David

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1976.tb00723.x

Cited by 46 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The consensus model (Harley, 1996) tested in this study is a structured model and, in this regard, differs from other consensus models reported in the literature (Hall & Watson, 1971;Nemiroff et al, 1976;Nemiroff & King, 1975;Schweiger et al, 1986). It resembles the scientific model advocated by Bennis (2002), since it is structured for both inquiry and critical judgment.…”

Section: Organizational Problem-solvingmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…A review of the literature uncovered a limited number of potential techniques: consensus model (Hall & Watson, 1971;Nemiroff et al, 1976;Nemiroff & King, 1975;Schweiger et al, 1986;Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989), nominal group technique (Nemiroff et al, 1976), dialectical inquiry (Schweiger et al, 1986;Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989), and devil's advocacy (Schweiger et al, 1986;Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989). Of these techniques, a particular consensus model (Harley, 1996) appeared to satisfy the criteria mentioned by Senge (1990) and was chosen for this study.…”

Section: Interventionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The consensus approach, a technique frequently used by senior-level management teams for strategic decision-making (Schweiger et al, 1986), encourages team members to fully discuss their ideas and opinions relevant to the situation until they can unify behind what they consider to be the best possible solution at the time (Harley, 1996). This approach has been shown to produce significantly superior decisions when compared to conventional group interaction (Hall & Watson, 1971;Nemiroff et al, 1976;Nemiroff & King, 1975). However, some researchers have criticized the consensus approach claiming it "advocates free expression in groups but provides no formal procedure for testing and evaluating these expressions" (Schweiger et al, 1986, p. 54).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consensus Problem-Solving Increases Perceived Communication Openness in Organizations

Preziosi

Breen

Fetzer

et al. 2005

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Members of three established teams in different organizations participated in problemsolving sessions using a structured consensus model. Participants perceived a significant increase in communication openness during these sessions as compared to their previous problem-solving sessions. The increase in communication openness suggests an improved openness to the flow of information among team members. The results of this study provide early indicators of successful applications for this consensus model, including improving the participation of team members during strategic planning and enhancing the upward flow of information to senior decision-makers for purposes of organizational change and development.

show abstract

Section: Organizational Problem-solvingmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Interventionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consensus Problem-Solving Increases Perceived Communication Openness in Organizations

Preziosi

Breen

Fetzer

et al. 2005

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These contexts range from the uncovering of productivity problems (Morris, 1979) to the identification of consumer perceptions of major pre-search problems (Claxton et al, 1980). Nemiroff et al, (1976) compared consensus, nominal and conventional interacting group on decision quality, member attitudes, and time taken to accomplish the lost at Sea exercise designed by the authors, but they noted no marked advantage to an NGT approach. Herbert and Yost (1979), strongly supported the superiority of NGT groups to uninstructed, interacting groups in accuracy, better use of group resources, and improvement over average individual decisions (high synergy) by implementing it on NASA Decision Making Problem (a task with considerable intentional depth).…”

Section: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The NGT presents several advantages to the researcher. It offers a well tested procedure which in one study was shown to be more effective at producing ideas than either the Delphi technique or discussion groups (Nemiroff et al, 1976). Green (1975) conducted a study of NGT vs. normal interactive groups to determine problems faced by students in electronic data processing.…”

Section: State-of-the-artmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Intelligent Decision Support System for Workforce Forecast

Wan¹,

Chen²,

Kuriger³

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information , 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 05-01-2011 REPORT TYPE 7184D214 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBERThe University of Texas at San Antonio One UTSA Circle San Antonio TX 78249 SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)Air SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)AFRL-RH-WP-TR-2011-0019 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTDistribution A: Approved for public release; distributed is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES88ABW/PA cleared on 23 Feb 2011, 88ABW-2011-0727. ABSTRACTThe main objective of this project is to enhance the effectiveness of workforce forecast and deployment through innovative approaches of artificial intelligence. The research included a final document of conventional and innovative methods of workforce forecasting and a decision support software program incorporating advanced artificial intelligence techniques for workforce forecasting. SUBJECT TERMS ABSTRACTThis project studies workforce forecasting in two main aspects: (1) an extensive review of the existing methodologies and techniques and (2) an effort to develop a decision support system with models and software programming. The main objective of this project is to enhance the effectiveness of workforce forecasting and deployment through innovative approaches of artificial intelligence. The deliverables include a summary report of conventional and innovative methods of workforce forecasting (Part I) and a decision support software program using artificial intelligence techniques for workforce forecasting (Part II).Part I, provided a thorough literature review of fundamental research and practices of demand and supply forecasting techniques for workforce analysis. Over 300 relevant literatures have been identified and reviewed by the project team, and 289 of them are covered in this report.Following is a summary of the main contents and contributions of Part I:• This report provides an extensive review of the fundamental knowledge, applications, guidelines, and scope of use of various workforce forecasting methods.• A decision tree has been proposed for selecting an appropriate forecasting ...

show abstract

Task bias and the accuracy of judgment: Setting a baseline for expected group performance

Reagan‐Cirincione

Rohrbaugh

1992

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a judgment task evokes unbiased estimates (i.e. the errors in individual judgments are distributed randomly around the true value), mathematical aggregation of individual estimates, even by a simple arithmetic mean, often will outperform all group members. However, when a task evokes biased estimates, mathematical aggregation does not perform so well. In this study, simulated data were accumulated to specify the expected' accuracy of mathematical aggregation relative to the accuracy of observed judgment of individual group members under varying conditions of task bias. Three types of judgment tasks were employed: (1) single‐estimate, holistic tasks, (2) multiple‐estimate, ranking tasks, and (3) multi‐cue, decomposed tasks. Findings indicated across all task types that a large percentage of judgment‐making group estimates formed strictly by computing the arithmetic mean of individual estimates performed better than their most capable members when a judgment task evoked little or no bias, a result particularly pronounced for ranking tasks. When the task was more greatly bias‐evoking, a large percentage of parallel groups performed more poorly than average (or median) members, again a pattern more starkly evident for ranking tasks. These results suggest that the extent to which a judgment task evokes bias in a population of prospective group members is an important explanatory variable deserving much greater attention in the study of group performance. For example, an assertion about the efficacy of a particular group intervention based on a reliable demonstration of group performance as accurate as the most capable members may be unfounded when a task evokes no bias, since the baseline standard under such conditions should be much higher. By selecting tasks and populations that jointly produced highly biased estimates, researchers can lower the performance floor enough to detect (with reasonably small samples of groups) experimental effects should they occur.

show abstract

THE EFFECTS OF TWO NORMATIVE STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS ON ESTABLISHED AND AD HOC GROUPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVING DECISION MAKING EFFECTIVENESS1

Cited by 46 publications

References 13 publications

Consensus Problem-Solving Increases Perceived Communication Openness in Organizations

Consensus Problem-Solving Increases Perceived Communication Openness in Organizations

An Intelligent Decision Support System for Workforce Forecast

Task bias and the accuracy of judgment: Setting a baseline for expected group performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About