Research background and motivation

An often-overlooked statistic buried in everyday life is the average count of decisions one makes per day. A study done by the Cornell University concluded that while subjects constantly under-estimated an average of fifteen food decisions alone, the actual average was actually two hundred and twenty-one. We can infer, and can also assume from this study that the average person makes far more in total on a daily basis (Lang, 2006).

Each stacking set of decisions made on daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis incrementally contributes toward a specific result, and each decision path determines the qualitative value of the attained result. Thus, it deems crucial that decisions must execute an effective leap towards the intended path. Much too often, nevertheless, various obstacles hinder progress, only to create more strain as the deadline draws near. Even more detrimental, however, is when poor decisions are made carelessly due to fragmented knowledge or incompetency among contributing members. Moreover, biases inevitably manifest within group members, either ready to be voice against members of an opposing interest, or to simply gain a feeling of contribution. More often than not, members of different job functions tend to seek decisions read out in their favor. In doing so, the more opinionated and/or rhetoric orators possess a large advantage in swaying the votes to their side, especially when many group members are indifferent towards the outcome. Unequal voices pose a significant drawback from a well-balanced and unbiased decision. Consequently, the quality of the project further deviates from its intended trajectory along each of these points.

Paralleled by Janis (1972), a widely recognized social psychologist, she coined the word “groupthink” and defined it as “occurs when a group makes faulty

decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p.9). Furthermore, she lists 8 symptoms of groupthink, listed as follows (Table 1):

Table 1.1: Symptoms of Groupthink

Fig. 1.1: Dilbert comic strip

Source: <http://www.usmansheikh.com/time-management/group-participation>

1) Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

2) Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

3) Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore

the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

4) Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict

seem unnecessary.

5) Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any

of the group’s views.

6) Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

7) Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

8) Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is

problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Janis outlined the symptoms prevalent in all companies, so prevalent that Scott Adams, illustrator of the famous comic strips, ‘Dilbert’, felt obligated to comically satire the issue. In his three-window illustration (shown in Fig. 1), a seemingly unlikely character assumes the role of facilitator,¹ and throughout the meeting praises himself for being the only valuable team member, claiming brilliance and worthiness of honor, all the while describing his surrounding members as ‘dolts’.² In the comic above, we pick up on the exaggerated irony that among the group, the unseemly character of smallest stature and also a species of minority, in a delusional mindset self-basks in praise but insults toward his surrounding group members. The comic’s intention, needless for further interpretation, is to poke fun at a reoccurring problem in a typical groupthink setting. The illustrator brilliantly taps any reader’s hierarchical memory evoking a recent relativity to such a scenario.

Past data-logs and internal reports are among the greatest dependencies in good decision making. They help teams learn from past mistakes and also help identify trends of predictive value in which a confident decision can be based upon.

Unfortunately, all companies face new challenges when data is not an available resource. Making a big decision without past data and/or experience will inevitably create more room for biases to manifest even more. Meeting rooms, assumingly, are most often the typical settings for this type of poor decision-making.

1 In a meeting setting, the facilitator plays the host, ensuring topics and time are in accordance with the agenda

2 Definition of Dolt, defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary: “A stupid person”

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dolt>

Fig. 1.2: An illustration of decision making process

For a semiconductor OSAT firm in Taiwan, these meeting habits are among the norm. In the typical meeting, the highest-level executive in the group makes the final decision based on the reports presented during the meeting. A key resource used here is the executive’s expertise, along with the past experiences and accumulated knowledge that will help with the decision. Combined with the group consensus, a sensible decision can be made (as shown in fig. 2). However, the disadvantage arises when facing a new issue. Without an objective data source such as past case studies to reference from, a confident decision will unlikely result. This then, poses a problem for the executive, whose next decision will greatly influence the success or failure of the company.