Group Decision Making: Two Heads Over One?

Published: December 17, 2014

“Research shows there are circumstances when group performance is actually worse than individual decision making, but how can groups manage biases to their advantage?”

The tendency for behavioural scientists to focus on individual aspects of decision making neglects the fact that many important decisions are taken by groups. In organisations for example, boards of directors or designated senior groups usually make important strategic decisions. In households important decisions are usually taken following discussions between family members.

Involving others is thought to lead to better decision making for three reasons:
• groups use more extensive information by drawing on the diversity of group members’ knowledge and experience;
• groups are more likely to detect errors and bias in reasoning given that each individual’s contribution is appraised by other group members; and
• each individual is more motivated to work hard given that others are evaluating the time and effort they devote to the task.

However, research challenges these assumptions and shows there are circumstances when group performance is actually much worse than individual decision making. In the November issue of the Harvard Business Review, Reid Hastie and Cass Sunstein outline a broad range of group biases that debunk assumptions about the superiority of groups.
1. The common knowledge bias debunks the first reason that groups are thought to be better. Research shows a strong tendency for groups to share and discuss the common information held by all members with little or no discussion of the unique information that each individual brings to the situation.

2. The second reason for group superiority is challenged by research showing that common errors in individual decision making, such as the confirmation bias, are often enhanced in group settings i.e. a stronger tendency to focus on and weight more heavily information that supports initial views and to neglect or discount information that does not. People’s own propensity to follow this mode of thought is reinforced when they see others using it as well. This leads to polarisation of group judgements e.g. the group attitude to risk is much more extreme than the attitudes held by each individual.

3. The third potential for superiority of groups is challenged by research showing ‘social loafing’ – a tendency for individuals to sit out meetings by making minimal or no contribution. This is particularly likely when individuals are not given space to make their contribution, they feel that their contribution is not listened to or acted on or when the most powerful group member dominates proceedings.

These group related biases, often subsumed under the title ‘groupthink’, have been shown to lead to lead to disastrous outcomes.

For example, these biases were at the heart US Senate Intelligence Committee report that explained how false premises about weapons of mass destruction led to the decision to invade Iraq without any apparent consideration of the risks involved and the failure to develop contingency plans to deal with these risks.

All groups, be it board members, senior management teams or a household, need to recognise and manage these biases if they are to achieve the potential advantages they have over individuals when making decisions.

Professor John Maule is an Associate at Linstock Communications

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail (not published) *


* Required field

Case Study: Motor Insurers’ Bureau

Understanding hotspots for driving un-insured

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau is a not for profit body that provides compensation to car accident victims when the driver...

Read more

Blog: Daft Punk & The Digital Brain

“As Daft Punk famously sang, when it comes to your thought leadership: work it harder, make it better.”

Received wisdom holds that sales and marketing materials need to look slick and professional. Fonts that are easy on the eye,...

Read more

Blog: Behavioural Science For B2B Marketers’

“Behavioural science should become B2B Marketers' (Nudge)Stock in Trade, to give a better understanding of how people think and act and improve campaign impact.”

Forget Glastonbury, the biggest festival in June was Nudgestock, an affectionate homage to the power of choice architecture,...

Read more

Case Study: Harborough

“Managing reputation during transformational change”

Local authorities across the country are grappling with the challenges of budget cuts and a more localist approach. Linstock...

Read more

Case Study: Southend Borough Council

“Sustainable transport: unlocking the change”

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council was awarded a grant from the Department for Transport to improve economic growth and reduce...

Read more