UPI Study › Courses › Leadership and Organizational Behavior › Free lessons › Lesson 12.2 Free with a free account
Effective Group Decision-Making Techniques and Problem-Solving Strategies
Leadership and Organizational Behavior · Chapter 12: Group Decision-Making and Problem-SolvingSection 12.2 · lesson 73 of 12210 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Leadership and Organizational Behavior.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Groupthink, Group Polarization, and Their Implications for Team Decisions →← Group vs. Individual Decision-Making and Cultural and Ethical ConsiderationsNext lesson: Groupthink, Group Polarization, and Their Implications for Team Decisions →
In this lesson
Structured procedures that stop a discussion following the loudest voice.
- Run brainstorming so it actually works
- Apply the nominal group technique
- Use Delphi where anonymity matters
- Manufacture the conflict good decisions need
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,349 words). Read along, or search it.
Group Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
Group Decision-Making Techniques and Problem-Solving Strategies
Putting capable people in a room does not guarantee a capable decision. Left to its natural rhythms, a group discussion behaves in predictable ways. It tends to follow the loudest voice in the room. It anchors on the first idea raised. And it drifts toward whatever conclusion preserves comfort. Structured techniques exist specifically to counteract those tendencies. Each technique is a deliberate procedure that channels the group's energy. It protects minority views from being crowded out. And it separates the generation of ideas from their evaluation. This section examines four widely used methods. Brainstorming, the nominal group technique, the Delphi method, and devil's advocacy.
Why Technique
Capable People Are Not Enough
These four methods are not interchangeable, which is worth stating early. They differ in how much they rely on face-to-face interaction. They differ in how they handle anonymity. And they differ in the kind of problem each one suits. A skilled facilitator selects among them the way a craftsperson selects a tool. That framing matters, because technique is often treated as a matter of taste. Some managers like brainstorming. Others find it chaotic. Those preferences are not the relevant question. The relevant question is what failure the technique was designed to prevent. Each of the four suppresses a specific way that unstructured groups go wrong. So choosing well requires knowing which failure you are currently facing.
Brainstorming
Four Ground Rules
Brainstorming is the most familiar group ideation method. It is also the most often misused. Its purpose is to generate a large volume of ideas quickly. It does that by suspending judgment during the generation phase. Four ground rules define it. Defer criticism. Welcome unconventional ideas. Aim for quantity. And build on the contributions of others. Underneath those rules is a specific premise. Evaluation and creation are different mental activities. Mixing them prematurely strangles promising ideas before they can develop. That premise is what the rules are protecting, and it explains why partial compliance fails.
Two Problems
Why Classic Brainstorming Underperforms
In practice, classic group brainstorming underperforms its reputation. Two effects undermine it, and both are structural. Production blocking is the first. Only one person can speak at a time in a live session. So members forget or suppress their ideas while waiting for a turn. Evaluation apprehension is the second. Members self-censor ideas they fear will seem foolish to colleagues. Note that neither problem is about the participants. Both are produced by the format itself, which is why better behavior does not fix them. The standard remedy is brainwriting. Members silently write ideas on cards first, removing both the bottleneck and the social pressure.
Doing It Well
Four Practices That Rescue the Method
Four practices rescue brainstorming when it is used live. First, separate idea generation from evaluation into distinct phases. Announce the phases clearly, so everyone knows which one they are in. Second, begin with a few minutes of silent individual writing. That single step defuses anchoring before the discussion starts. Third, capture every idea visibly. Visible capture lets members build on one another rather than repeating each other. Fourth, save all judgment for a separate evaluation round. And note the phrase all judgment, because it includes positive judgment. Praising an idea during generation anchors the group just as effectively as criticizing one. Enthusiasm narrows a discussion in exactly the same way that skepticism does.
Nominal Group
Four Steps That Equalize Voice
The nominal group technique is a structured sequence in four steps. It is designed to give every member an equal voice. And to keep dominant personalities from steering the outcome. It is called nominal because for part of the process the group exists in name only. Members work independently before they interact at all. First, members silently and individually write ideas answering a clearly stated question. Second, ideas are shared round-robin, one per person per turn, and recorded without discussion. Third, the group discusses each recorded idea, but only to clarify its meaning. Not to argue its merit, which is a boundary the facilitator has to hold. Fourth, members privately rank or rate the ideas. Those rankings are aggregated to reveal the group's actual preference.
Choosing
Matching Technique to Conditions
The four techniques differ along three dimensions worth comparing directly. Brainstorming is live and verbal, with no anonymity. It suits rapid divergent idea generation in a trusting team. Brainwriting is live and written, with partial anonymity. It suits idea generation where members fear judgment. The nominal group technique mixes silent work with live interaction. It provides anonymity at the voting stage specifically. It suits prioritizing options while equalizing voice. The Delphi method has no live interaction at all, and full anonymity. It suits expert forecasting across distance or rank. Because the nominal group's final choice rests on private voting, the whole group can see it was fair.
Delphi
Judgment From Experts Who Never Meet
The Delphi method gathers judgment from experts who never meet. A facilitator poses a question, and collects anonymous responses. The facilitator then summarizes those responses. That summary returns to the panel with a request to reconsider. Over several such rounds, estimates tend to converge. Members absorb the reasoning of others without knowing who said what. That is the mechanism, and it is the whole design. Because no one can see who holds which view, status and persuasion lose their grip. The panel converges on the strength of arguments rather than the volume of advocates. Delphi shines when expertise is scattered, or the topic is sensitive enough to need candor. Its cost is time, because each round requires collection, synthesis, and redistribution.
Manufactured Conflict
Devil's Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry
The techniques so far improve generation and prioritization of ideas. Devil's advocacy targets a completely different failure. That failure is premature agreement. Here one member, or a designated subgroup, is formally assigned a role. They build the strongest possible case against the group's emerging preference. The role is structural rather than personal, and that distinction is the key to it. Because the critique is expected and sanctioned, it does not read as disloyalty. The group is then forced to defend its choice against serious objection before committing. A close relative is dialectical inquiry. Two subgroups develop opposing recommendations from the same facts, then debate them. Both methods manufacture the conflict that healthy decisions need.
Facilitation
The Hidden Variable
No technique succeeds on its own. Each depends on the skill of the person guiding it. A facilitator's first duty is to protect the structure of the chosen method. Groups have a natural impulse to abandon structure under time pressure. When a brainstorming session slides into premature criticism, the facilitator restores the boundary. When a nominal group's clarification stage turns into argument, the same restoration is needed. This guardianship is unglamorous but decisive. The difference between a technique that works and one that disappoints is usually fidelity. Fidelity to the rules, under the pressure of impatience. A facilitator also manages airtime, using round-robin formats and written input. The goal is not equal airtime for its own sake, but that idea quality determines influence.
Failure Modes
Three Ways Even Good Techniques Fail
Even well-chosen techniques fail in recognizable ways. Anchoring is the first failure mode. The first idea or estimate raised exerts disproportionate pull on everything after it. Silent individual work before any sharing is the standard antidote. Premature convergence is the second. A group seizes the first workable option and stops searching. It mistakes relief for resolution, which is a genuinely easy mistake to make. Requiring a minimum number of alternatives counteracts it. Process loss is the third, and it is the gap between potential and actual achievement. It accumulates through coordination overhead, social loafing, and unmanaged conflict. So when a session feels unproductive, ask which failure mode is operating, not who is at fault.
In Sequence
The Techniques Are the Engine; the Frame Is the Vehicle
A worked scenario shows how the techniques combine. A cross-functional team of nine must select a new project-tracking tool. The choice will affect daily work across several departments for years. The stakes rule out a quick individual call. But a nine-person free-for-all would be dominated by two or three vocal members. So the team sequences the techniques. It opens with brainwriting, where each member silently lists needed capabilities. That surfaces requirements quieter departmental representatives would never have volunteered aloud. Next the nominal group technique ranks those requirements privately. A subgroup then evaluates candidate tools against the weighted requirements. And before committing, devil's advocacy attacks the favorite, forcing the migration plan into the open.
About Leadership and Organizational Behavior at UPI Study
Leadership and Organizational Behavior (Business 206) is a self-paced online course of 122 video lessons in 20 chapters, from personality, perception and motivation to leadership and power, teams, decision-making, conflict, organizational structure, culture, ethics and change. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Leadership and Organizational Behavior with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Leadership and Organizational Behavior carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Effective Group Decision-Making Techniques and Problem-Solving Strategies
Why does group brainstorming often underperform, and what is brainwriting?
What is the nominal group technique?
What is the Delphi method in decision-making?
What is devil's advocacy in group decision-making?
About the Leadership and Organizational Behavior course
How many college credits is Leadership and Organizational Behavior?
How much does Leadership and Organizational Behavior cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Leadership and Organizational Behavior take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Leadership and Organizational Behavior.
122 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →