of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  5 The Research: Effective Communication and Decision-making in Diverse Groups By Jasmin Enayati1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to review relevant bodies of scientific research. It is particularly the areas of social and organizational psychology that provide information on how to design multi-stakeholder processes. Studying the findings on effective decision-making processes in groups of high diversity gives our suggestions theoretical and empirical basis. We will start by looking at some basic findings of social and organizational psychology. Although we have included reviewing some ‘popular’ management literature, most research in this area is conducted in isolated laboratory settings as a means of controlling the multiple conditions of ‘real   life’ social processes. This enables conclusions about a single phenomenon or factor but can impede more general conclusions. That is why we have mostly used sources which assemble the knowledge gained in large numbers of experiments and studies. It is particularly noteworthy that, while there is an extensive body of research in the area of social psychology2 into group processes, group dynamics, communication and decision-making within groups, there is hardly any research (yet) into the specifics of multi-stakeholder processes. Intergroup cooperation and conflict in realistic settings has been addressed by organizational psychology, however, with a clear focus on team-based, often hierarchical structures within corporations. 74 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES These function under conditions which are in many ways different from those in multi-stakeholder processes, where representatives from different sectors of society aim to discuss or collaborate on a certain issue for a certain period in time. Therefore, some of the research findings reported here can be transferred only to a certain extent. Clarifying the impact of diversity on communication patterns and decision-making processes will lead us to examining the impact of various methods for achieving consensus. We will explore different forms of diversity, such as gender and ethnicity in more detail and look at the consequences of these and other differences, such as status and power, on effective decision-making and implementation. The chapter will conclude by looking at the role of leadership, mediation and interactive conflict resolution as a means of assisting diverse groups in achieving their full potential. The intention is to make the information obtained in existing research accessible, relevant and applicable to multi-stakeholder processes. The suggested analytical framework for multi-stakeholder processes has been checked against these findings. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS Diversity and its impact on decision-making The increasing popularity of group-based decision-making reflects a widely shared belief that group decision-making offers the potential to achieve outcomes that could not be achieved by individuals working in isolation. Diverse perspectives allegedly are beneficial to decisionmaking processes. Members with diverse perspectives are supposed to: provide the group with a comprehensive view of possible issues on the agenda, including both opportunities and threats; and alternative interpretations of the information gathered and creative courses of action and solutions that integrate the diverse perspectives (Triandis et al, 1965). Diverse groups offer immense potential for increased quality of group performance and innovative decision-making (Jackson, 1996; Seibold, 1999; Phillips and Wood, 1984; Pavitt, 1993). The direct involvement in the decision-making process is likely to lead to a change of norms and to individual commitment. However, benefits from decision-making groups are not automatic. The Research 75 Stereotyping When analysing the potential problems that can emerge through diversity in decision-making groups from a social psychological perspective, stereotyping is of particular importance. A social stereotype is ‘a set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people’ (Ashmore a nd DelBoca 1986, p16). Such sets of beliefs are being ‘activated’ (that is start influencing perception in a given situation) through identifying the group  membership of a person. In other words, once we identify a person as a woman, for example, our stereotypical beliefs about women in general will influence our perception and judgement towards that person. It is important to note that stereotyping is not some ‘bad habit’; it is inherent in our cognitive processes. It makes our perception quicker and more economic; we simply cannot meet everybody as a completely ‘new person’, a blank sheet. Nor are stereotypes necessarily completely wrong. Having our perceptions and expectations shaped through stereotyping can indeed have positive social effects. For example, when we meet an elderly person, we might take into account that they cannot walk very quickly and, somewhat ‘automatically’, walk at a slower pace. For many elderly people, this might be annoying as they do not have a problem keeping up, but for others, it will be a friendly gesture. Once stereotypical beliefs come into play in the cognitive process, they affect people’s perception, attitude and behaviour. The impact of stereotyping can increase in difficult decision-making processes when strong emotions like anxiety, irritation or anger arise and overshadow our judgement (Mackie and Hamilton, 1993). However, contact with members of the stereotyped group might be the first step in overcoming stereotyping if it happens repeatedly and with more than one  –  typical  –  group member (Pettigrew, 1989). In many cases, the best strategy in order to overcome prejudice has proved to engage both groups in a common activity  –  working together, particularly if the activity is successful, can significantly contribute to reducing prejudice and improve relations between different groups (Sherif and Sherif, 1953; Smith and Mackie 2000).3 As discussed, stereotyping does not necessarily imply negative evaluation but often it does, and then it implies social prejudice (negative attitudes) and discrimination (negative behaviour): a person is judged negatively merely because they belong to a certain social group. Impacts on behaviour can include avoidance, exclusion, fear and aggression. It is important to note that being discrimin ated against can elicit ‘counter - discrimination’ and hence further increase distance between social groups (Hemmati et al, 1999). 76 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES Overcoming stereotyping and prejudice is therefore an important component of successful processes with groups of high diversity. Group composition The composition of diverse groups has implications for: problem-solving and decision-making processes; the development of status hierarchies; patterns of participation and communication; the developme nt of cohesiveness; and the group’s ability to perform and implement decisions (Jackson, 1996). In practice, diverse decision-making teams have often not achieved their potential. The interaction problems associated with diversity often lead to lower performance than if the group had fewer resources. The need for the integration of diversity is great (Maznevski, 1994). Diverse groups are designed to differ with regard to various characteristics, such as the demographic composition of the group, for example gender, age and ethnicity; educational and occupational background; knowledge and area of expertise; attitudes and values; as well as status and power  –  or, in the case of multi-stakeholder processes, they differ with regard to a mix of those characteristics. An additional facet to diversity in groups is specified by Belbin (1993). Based on training experience with management teams, he distinguishes nine functional team roles that contribute to the effective performance of decision-making teams: plant, resource investigator, coordinator, shaper, monitor evaluator, team worker, implementer, specialist, completer and perfectionist. Optimal group composition is given when all roles are represented, leading to a high degree of compatibility within the team (for a further discussion see Beck et al, 1999). In the context of groups consisting of representatives from various stakeholder groups, Belbin’s approach cannot easily provide us with pragmatic recommendations. However, his categories of team roles make a strong point about the  significance of diversity in appreciating personal and functional differences. Differences provide a space to build on each other’s strengths and can be a means to reduce competition and enable cooperation. There is, it should be said, some ambiguity about the importance of group composition. Group composition can be seen as an important determinant of the performance of a group. However, group composition is also merely a determinant of the resources available to a group. The Research 77 Studies on task- or expertise-based status have received little empirical attention. An interesting phenomenon observed within groups composed of experts and relative novices is the ‘assembly bonus effect’ which occurs when both experts and non-experts perform better within the team context than they would alone (Shaw, 1981). One explanation for this effect is that experts learn during interactions with non-experts because of a need to clarify assumptions they automatically make when dealing with issues in their domain of expertise. Findings such as these suggest that performance is enhanced when both experts and novices are represented in one problem-solving group (Jackson, 1996). The implications of diversity are far-reaching in the way that members of a group process information, make decisions and implement them. No single theory explains the complex relationship between the different dimensions of diversity and its possible consequences on effective performance of the group, such as communication patterns within a group, communication across group boundaries, cohesiveness, and so on. A variety of perspectives have guided the studies, including Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Turner et al, 1987)4 and research on management composition (Hambrick, 1994). The following section describes some of the consequences of diversity in more detail. Communication and decision-making in groups Communication is an essential process in the development of group culture. The type of communication structure determines leadership, roles and the status hierarchy within the group; group morale and cohesiveness; and it limits or enhances productivity (Hare, 1992). The balance between task-focused and socio-emotional communication is crucial if a group is to be effective. Different types of communication are needed for different tasks. If a group’s task is relatively simple, a centralized communication network in which interaction between members is limited, tends to increase effectiveness. Complex problem-solving is facilitated by decentralized communication networks (Shaw, 1981). As recommended by Wheelan (1994, p33), the choice of a communication network might be more effective if strategies of decision-making were outlined in advance and if urges to stabilize the structure too early were resisted, as there is considerable resistance to change once these structures are established. Awareness of these issues is usually low and it is one of the tasks of the group leader or facilitator to bring them to the group’s a ttention. It is notable that a decentralized 78 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES communication network does not exclude the existence of a group leader (see discussion below). Communication standards, and thus performance, are raised if the group has clear, performance-oriented goals; an appropriate task strategy; and a clear set of rules; fairly high tolerance for intermember conflicts and explicit communication feedback to ensure that information is understood (Maznewski, 1994, p532). SOCIAL INFLUENCE Decision-making is not simply rational information-gathering (Jackson, 1996). For example, information held by only one member of the group is often ignored. Research on social influence and conformity indicates the value of having on a team at least two people who agree on an answer. The well-known social influence studies are the classic experiments by Salomon Asch, who asked people in a group to judge line length after hearing the erroneous judgements of several other people. This research revealed that when a p erson’s private  judgement was unlike the judgements expressed by others, they soon abandoned their own judgement,  even when their answer was verifiably correct. However, in the presence of just one other person who agreed with them, people persevered in the face of opposition (Asch, 1951, 1956). Also, just as an individual is likely to lack confidence, the team may lack confidence that, in an ambiguous situation, a deviant opinion could be correct. This is particularly true if the individual with the correct answer is of relatively low status. Such evidence suggests that for diverse groups to fulfil their potential, group members should have overlapping areas of expertise, instead of a sole expert for each relevant knowledge domain (Jackson, 1996). As demonstrated by a substantial body of research (Seibold, 1999), applying formal procedures might control the potential problems of ‘free’ group discussions. Formal procedures offer various models to decrease social influence which can undermine the value of contributions from low status members, as described above, and facilitate effective group discussions (see the discussion of various procedures). CONFORMITY PRESSURE If individual members of a group initially have opposing views on an issue and the number of supporters on both sides are (more or less) evenly split, the communication process usually results in compromise (Wetherall, 1987). Through processes of social influence, the position reflected in the final decision becomes more moderate, an effect called ‘depolarization’. Divergence between a final decision and member The Research 79 views is generated. This process can reduce the motivation of individual members to participate up to their capacity in group decision-making, thus reducing the chances that decisions will reflect their views (Latane et al, 1979). A consensus cannot be trusted if it arises from reliance on others’ positions without careful consideration of contamination by shared biases,5 based on the belief that we can better trust a consensus because multiple individuals have reached the same conclusion, particularly if these individuals differ significantly in a relevant variable. Public conformity, defined as people behaving consistently with norms they do not privately accept as correct, can potentially undermine true consensus. Such a consensus only offers the illusion of unanimity. A series of experiments claiming the exact opposite to research findings on conformity had a big impact on the field of group dynamics. GROUP POLARIZATION When a majority of the group initially leans towards one position, their consensus tends to influence others in the group that hold a more moderate position. Both their positions and arguments make a polarization of group positions more likely, leading to a more extreme position. The consensus makes the majority arguments more persuasive: they are more numerous, receive more space for discussion and are usually presented in a more compelling fashion, as members of the majority use a less cautious style of advocacy. Thus, majority viewpoints are reinforced and advocates of the minority viewpoint are won over. Group interaction moves the group’s average position in the direction favoured by the majority initially or to an even more extreme position. Group polarization towards a more extreme pole can be the consequence (Moscovici and Zavalloni, 1969). An additional explanation is based on Festinger’s social comparison theory (1954) which proposes that polarization is caused by group members competing with one another to endorse the socially most desirable viewpoints. Agreeing with a consensus (or going even beyond that) fulfils people’s desire for holding the ‘correct’ views. Almost all the studies in which polarization has been found were conducted in laboratory settings with ad hoc groups in which the outcome was almost always hypothetical. In naturalistic settings the polarization effect is less consistent. An explanation for these discrepancies might be that more permanent bodies establish norms about the communication structure which might inhibit polarization (Brown, 2000). 80 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES CONSENSUS-BUILDING Making a decision by establishing consensus rather than some voting procedure typically increases the
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!