Groupthink and Risky Shift Phenomenon Essay

Groupthink phenomenon continues to exist and influence in a chemical stem decision making. This is peculiarly happen when pigeonholing ropiness is last and there is an absence of easy communication. However, under geting the theory would alter us to recognize the factors that whitethorn affect the bore of decisions we do in the stem. Risky-shift on the other hand, exists as a form of motivation with a lieu of a overlap responsibility of taking the lay on the liney decision.It is mainly accepted that this lucky-shift influence by cultural value in which individualistic is motivated to adopt the take a chanceier alternating(a) to subjoin convocation or social club status. Understanding risky-shift en adapteds us to flash back the magnitude of pressure of which the risk has to drive as imbedded in every decision made during un receivedties. In addition, sort inter motion is very important in the process of decision-making whereby individual whimsy and ideas i s valued.It is also in this way that individual pull up stakes learn to stand his position in certain decision-making procedure. It maybe be difficult and intriguing since individual entrust share different ideas and inputs, ex diversity opinions and contrary views, thus far in the process develop choices to the solution in fuss closure which reflects a soundly base decision-making. Overall, these sociological phenomenon and perspective allow us to identify attri only whenes that may control and limit the development of best election in solving problem and issues.Finally, a clear understanding of the elements of these theories give enable members to recognised symptoms within a faulty root decision-making and piss the best alternative course of action from the theme. This paper is going to deliver insights on the facial expression of Yellow car telephoner in marge of the unfavorable decision in the sociological perspective area such(prenominal) as the Groupthink a nd Risky-shift phenomenon. Introduction Group decision-making sometimes falls into the typical group norm which a great deal leads to failure.This happens usually because of the idea of group cohesion and valuing the expect for belongingness in the group. Janis (1972) defines it as a deliberate action of an individual group member to conform to the decision of the group to keep the harmony. The reason place is to avoid clashes and come up with a solution without being small during a group decision-making process. In addition to the need of individual for belonging, group consortency to transfer the risk to group members allow the group to choose the riskier alternative.It usually, emerges from a faulty organisational social structure and communication perspective which oftentimes issuances a superior probability of failure. The Yellow Auto Company was a well-kn testify international car company in India. The company is consume and manage by the family where the structure i s hierarchical in which line managing directors and employee has no autonomy in terms of decision making. There is an obvious blue cohesion within the members of the decision making body and this is exposit as unwritten rules of the company which is nighly in the minds of the family members.When the crest managers of the Yellow Auto Company, notice the decreasing job satisfaction and commitment of their employees, they decided to endow on their development. Even though, there was an existing stinting crisis in the country, the group decided pursuit with their programmes in drop in human imagery with the help of immaterial consultant. This report will utilize the sociological perspective to overcritically analyse these signifi cigarett issue and the make recommendation to an in effect(p) group decision-making. The Groupthink phenomenonThe virtually critical decision that the Yellow Auto Company defecate done was the decision of hiring and working with external consult ant. Since the company was possess and manage by the family, its group structure is assumed to have high group cohesiveness and lack of critical watchword procedures. Janis (1972) exerts that group with high cohesiveness encourages concurrence to its norms and without adequate decision procedures which is a condition of groupthink will tend to result to a poor decision (Callaway & Esser, 1984).In this case the family who runs the company shares common purposes and interests, that gives them a sense of security resulting to a overlap illusion of invulnerability (Teale, Dispenza, Flynn, & Currie, 2003a). This is further describe in the case where around of the rules are unwritten and in the minds of the family members which is a characteristic of group residence (Teale, et al. , 2003a) and where employees did not have more than autonomy in decision making.This consistency of individual to adapt the decision of group members (Gerring, Zimbardo, Campbell, Cumming, & Wilkes, 2012 ), tends to suppressed individual critical thinking to avoid being ridiculed and being question on their loyalty. The structure of communication process was described as hierarchical where agenda can readily be manipulated and directed by pressure of group conformity which reflects self-censorship (Teale, et al. , 2003a).The top managers and possessor who make the dominant decision for the organization (Teale, Dispenza, Flynn, & Currie, 2003b) may result to a limited quality of the decision as described by Simon as bounded rationality (Tolbert & Hall, 2008). As a result of this limitation the group could only identify and provide little alternative course of action to the problem than in groups where participation is encourage (Carrie, 2010). In addition, the absence of critical thinking in group establishion may devoid individual of their potentials to contribute mportant information necessary of the group (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).In this scenario, the manager may cause other m embers to follow whatever personalised view (Janis, 1972) he may have which is a groupthink perspective characterized by a high level of confidence and lack of disagreement from group members(Callaway & Esser, 1984). However, when the top managers realized the need for experts to manage change process in human resource which reflect task-oriented group (Teale, et al. , 2003a) shows a positive group structure which characterised an rough-and-ready group decision.Inviting outside expert is a banner to prevent the groupthink phenomena, allowing independent group to work on the same problem and assess the organizations. When top managers, line managers and employees decided to work and cooperate with external consultant, it bridges the gap and opens the communication between managers and employees. This communication process, allows members of the group to provides truthful feedbacks to reduce and unveil the hidden and unknown areas as described in Johari Window as information keep to avoid conflict and out of sight potential and unrecognized skills(Teale, et al. 2003a).In addition it allows group members to contribute in the development of high-quality decision which is a characteristic of consensus perspective (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The occurrence of open communication between managers and employees demonstration an active cooperation of the group, which is a characteristic for an effective accomplishation of a decision(Amason, 1996). This intermediate cohesiveness(Callaway & Esser, 1984) produces high quality decision which builds interchangeable respect, acceptable culture and shared direction in the achievement of organisational goal.This is a reflection of process-oriented group (Teale, et al. , 2003a) skills where group interaction uses cooperative earshot and other social skills to produce a common understanding and acquiring the job done. Overall, this changes and action of top managers towards their employee builds a mutual commitment for a s uccessful implementation of the decision as described by Guth and Macmillan (Amason, 1996). The Risky-shift phenomenon intimately often the group will chose a riskier alternative than decision made by individual (Burnstein, 1969 Stoner, 1968), whereby members of the groups ends to decide differently about perceived risk when they are alone. Some of the many reasons why it might happen hold diffusion of responsibility where emotion bonds exist. In this case, the relationship of the family who runs the company, may have the tendency to reduce apprehension and perceived the risk as shared (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1964). Group members would take a risky alternative with the feeling of little personal responsibility for the negative consequences of such a decision(Forsyth, 1990) and less likeliness of being blamed.It is also a way for individual to easily cross within the group when making parts to a group discussion and call only when expected that the group would agree as describ ed by a spiral-of-silence logic (Packer, 2009) whereby individuality is restricted by other plentys opinion. In addition, the top managers and owner of the company cooperation with the external consultant allows the sharing of responsibility to members of the risk which minimizes blaming in case of failure of decision(Clark, 1971).As a result, the decision will most likely be riskier, as they share the risk and relatively make individual felt risk less. Another probability for the risky-shift to exist is the leadership influence(Clark, 1971) over the group. High risk-taker will persuade others to take greater risks(Collins & Guetzkow, 1964) because of their aggressiveness and commitment in the pursuit of their objective which in this case the top manager and owner. The top managers and owner personal and direct involvement in the company and in the discussion (Forsyth, 1990) will have the tendency to influence the group members.This is further support by Brown (1965) who asserts th at status in the group is often attached with risk-taking, which oftentimes made the group chose the riskier alternative. In this case scenario, the decision of investing in human resource despite the prevailing financial economic crisis is a perceived risk yet the group chose to proceed with the plan perhaps because of the influence that the owner have over the group. This is further explored by Bateson (1966) who asserts that as individual become familiar with the problem will tend to advocate more risky alternative.A group interaction will significantly contributes in the amiliarization perspective(Kogan & Wallach, 1967) which allow members of the group to known and be roaring with risk at hand (Clark, 1971). This group interaction opens the discussion and information exchange towards possible alternative during a risky decision-making. Perhaps the most widely recognized reason of a risky-shift is the cultural value in itself. In the group or in the society situation most indi viduals choose a riskier decision in order to increase their status in the group. Clark (1971) exerts that diffusion-of-responsibility, leadership influence and familiarization, is dependent upon the relevant content of the risk.In the case of Yellow Auto Company which the structure management is hierarchical, the top manager and owner have wider scope of activities and concern of the companys status. Given the current situation of the company in which employee become less committed and unsatisfied in their job, decided to mitigate the issue through with(predicate) investing in human resource development and seek assistance from external consultant. This is probably to ensure that they are relatively blameless in the event of company failure and protect their status as well-know global car company.The economic crisis will not only entails the company or family societal status but will also cost them peculiarly on monetary budget allocation and the length of time to implement and e valuate the result and progress as the external consultant do their job. Perhaps the most common action plan during this time of economic crisis is cost cutting or reduction of employee. Another probability would be that the company will try to maximize their internal workforce or perhaps freeze job hiring rather than spending too much on outsourced hiring.However the group has made this risky-shift as a display of good decision making by their unwavering determination to open its main aim of customer satisfaction and to achieve its goal to increase share in the market. The attitude of the top managers of being less on the lookout or less conservative in its orientation towards decision making (Hong, 1978) made it possible for them to reach their the goal. Their participation and cooperation with external consultant is a manifestation of an effective group decision.This group interaction opens an avenue for change process and ultimately results to the attainment of the desired goa l. The acceptance of top managers on working with external consultants reflects criteria of compromise decision making, whereby allowing members of the group to freely discuss and present individual and collective ideas and opinion for the common good of the company. This action creates a positive motivation towards job satisfaction of employee (Nemioff & King, 1975) which is described in the case in the later part where employee shows job satisfaction and organizational commitment.This is an indication of an effective group decision making whereby members of the group enrol in the implementation of the decision (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Conclusion These are only hardly a(prenominal) of the many sociological phenomenons that influence a group decision making, especially when group cohesiveness is high and there is an absence of open communication. Groupthinks reduce individuality in a group discussion while risky-shift enable individual to conform with the group in order to incre ase group status.Understanding these theories would enable the group to recognize the factors that may affect the quality of decisions we made in the group. It also reduces the magnitude of pressure in which the risk has to charter in every decision made during uncertainties. In addition, group communication is very important in the process of decision-making whereby individual is able to express their opinion and ideas. It is also in this way that individual contribution is valued and will learn to stand his position in certain decision-making procedure.It may be difficult and challenging because of individual different views but the process will develop alternatives in problem solving which reflects a good group decision-making. Overall, understanding these sociological phenomenon and perspective allow us to identify attributes that may control and limit the development of best alternative in solving problem and issues. Recommendation To avoid the pitfall of groupthink and risky- shift sociological perspective it is recommended that 1. Each members of the group that is to include the leader or manager should value the presence and idea of each members of the group 2.Leaders and managers should be sensitive enough to avoid the effects of groupthink by refraining from using their condition and influence over the group. 3. Leaders and managers should refrain from persuading members of the group in their own idea. 4. Group members should in times take the role of a critical evaluator and this should be allowed by the group to speak his doubts on the decision. 5. A separate group should be created to work with the same problem. 6. Finally, a good communication between group members combined with a deeper understanding would bring success and less probability of failure in the decision.