Reading chapter 17 opened my eyes in regards to many of the issue that groups face to reach an agreeable decision. So many times a group will get ahead of themselves because they all feed off each others nervous energy and the decisions that end up being made are completely counter-productive.
First things first, the analysis of the problem is key. Without understanding what everyone trying to accomplish, all work is futile. The problem provides the starting point for the map of how to get things done.
Second, by setting goals, the group can pul together for a cause and understand where they are headed. If analyzing the problem is the starting point, the goal would be the destination.
Third, identifying alternatives will let the group voice individual opinions. This where the strength of a group shows itself because no one person can know everything. With different minds at work, alternatives can be explored and the end result should be stronger because of it.
Lastly, when a group evaluates their alternatives, they can work out the bugs of certain ideas and dismiss others, ultimately reaching the best solution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It is very helpful for a group to have a diverse collection of people. Each person could have different strengths which could prepare the group for any situation. I like to look at as a good example the Justice League. You have Superman and Wonder Woman who have unlimited strength and invulnerability. The Flash, who is fast and also invincible. Batman, who is smart and and very good at investigations, and finally Martian Manhunter, who is strong, able to phase through solid matter, and also has a range of telepathic abilities. If I didn't know better this group is pretty much equipped to handle anything. They get along most of the time and they are all friends. Could these be the characteristics of a good group for decision making, except for the super powers of course.
I have observed poor decision making so many times as groups (including ones I'm in) rush into trying to solve the problem before analyzing it. As I commented on Cait's blog, the legislation Congress just passed is a good example of lack of problem analysis. I suspect developing the legislation followed anything but a systematic approach to problem solving. Maybe Congress could have used the Justice League to provide more insights into the issues.
I also believe with professor cyborg. We often are criticized for not taking actions soon enough, however, we can be equally criticized for taking actions too soon, and the actions being wrong either way. The issue I believe is not necessarily time, but yet what is the final decision and the impact of that decision. If it is relatively minute impact, than why spend an abundant amount of time. If it has far reaching consequences, than the correct amount of time must be given, to ensure that the correct decision is made, whether extremely long or fast. Bottom line is that the problem must be analyzed and decision of action thought out.
Post a Comment