Group decision-making has accompanied humanity throughout its history. Literary monuments of the past have survived to this day that describe attempts to solve problems together, as a group. Understandably, in the course of the group members’ exchanges, contradictions arose that needed to be resolved. And this is the most difficult moment in the course of making a joint decision. For example, Protagoras’ (5th century B.C.) book “The Art of Arguing” is devoted to eliminating this difficulty.
It is safe to say that the personal interest of each group member in the optimal solution of the problem reduces categorical and irreconcilable opinions. In addition, personal interest reduces the so-called “facade effect,” when speakers want to impress, to demonstrate competence and not always say what they would say in another setting.
It is clear that their attitude towards the decision depends on their personal interest. It can be assumed that there is also a correlation between execution and the extent to which each group member’s opinion is taken into account in developing the decision.
There are many ways to make decisions. All of them essentially differ from each other: first, whether it is possible to involve all of the group in work and, secondly, whether it is possible to find and formulate the solution to a problem satisfactory to all by the efforts of the group.
Some types of group decisions
Based on the above considerations, it is unlikely that in a peaceful environment the group can be satisfied with one-man, authoritarian or authoritative decision-making.
A majority decision does not imply the general agreement of the group because the minority is left out, which cannot help but affect their mood and attitude toward the decision made.
Group decision-making on the basis of compromise and give-and-take is also practiced. Compromise involves giving up some of one’s beliefs, which inevitably leaves everyone with a certain amount of dissatisfaction.
The type of group decision development and adoption in which unity of opinion is achieved is called “round” or agreed upon.(5) We will use the term “round” or “round table” hereafter.
Group decision-making methods
There are many techniques by which these and other types of group decision-making are carried out. The most famous of these is brainstorming. The positive features of this methodology are the ban on criticism and the abundance of the most incredible ideas. What is left out of the picture, however, is how an abundance of ideas is reduced to a single voluntary decision.
The method of “dictatorship” is evidenced by its very name: the solution to the problem becomes the opinion of one of the participants in the group, which in no way can be a motivator, inspiration and unification for the participants.
The method of “circular decision-making” consists in the fact that group members write a variant of their solution to a problem on sheets of paper and submit reviews of their comrades’ suggestions within a set deadline. The general meeting then discusses the results and makes a decision by majority vote. Some important disadvantages of the majority decision method were mentioned above.
The Delphi method involves writing anonymously about ideas suggested by comrades. The anonymity of statements, unfortunately, allows, first, their possible incorrectness, which in no way contributes to the cohesion of the group. Second, it remains unclear how, in the end, the final decision is reached.
The list of group decision-making methods could go on. However, the general disadvantage of the listed methods is, first, the undeveloped nature of the reduction of many opinions to one, which is accepted on a voluntary basis by everyone, and, second, they do not promote group cohesion because of the heterogeneity of opinions. It is well known that the group, united by the adopted common, desired for all decision, is interested in the implementation of the decision in life.
The circle method
The noted disadvantages of the techniques are absent when the overall decision is made on the basis of the above-described view, called “circle”. It is “a method of problem solving, a way of coming together, a way to new discoveries” (4). And, I would like to add, – the way to new good and wonderful feelings.
The circle “works” because it relies on bringing people together, removing the mutual ill-will caused by the competitive aspect of the opinions expressed. Decisions based on the roundtable methodology are a manifestation of the collective will. It is assumed that the participants of the circle are prepared. This means that they have firmly grasped the previously developed rules for roundtable participants. Everyone should know and constantly remember the purpose for which the roundtable is organized: to create a common solution. Before the work begins, they stipulate what causes the need for a group-wide solution to the problem.
This activity involves talking to 6-10 people according to certain rules that they have learned and accepted. The participants of the round table speak in order of priority.
The purpose of the conversation is not only to develop a common position in solving the problem under discussion. Equally important is the emergence of a new feeling among the participants in the circle: a sense of unity, solidarity, a sense of elbow.
How do you achieve cohesion?
Among the participants there is a moderator, who has a very important dual role: he is both a facilitator and an equal participant in the event. After the greeting he should outline the problem, formulate the main goal of the conversation and remind the rules of the round table.
It is important for roundtable participants to learn the rule of equal opinion: no one opinion is privileged. Criticism of previous suggestions is forbidden, but alternative opinions are freely expressed. Your disagreement with the previous speaker can be expressed in the development of his idea.
It is important to remember that before you begin work, you should discuss the need and benefit to all of the overall solution to be created. In this case, during group work on the “circle” method, it is easier for participants to rise above their selfishness and their personal opinion and to give their all to the construction of a common solution to the problem.
Before the meeting, the participants of the circle are invited to conduct a self-analysis: what I can contribute to the common cause, what I can offer for a solution. As a result, the quality of interaction among group members changes.
As follows from the rules of conduct at the round table, everyone is obliged to participate in the discussion, not criticizing the proposals of those who spoke before him, but only voicing his point of view in addition to previous ones.
This technique gives an opportunity to speak out, to be heard, and, no less importantly, to learn to listen carefully to others. Studies show that no more than 10% of people have the ability to listen. It has also been found that when a person listens, he or she achieves approximately 25% efficiency.(3)
In the course of the work, participants in the circle have a feeling of “the third shoulder,” and this is a wonderful new feeling that one wants to extend, to repeat. We should not exclude the novelty of the problem to be solved for some members of the circle and the desire and opportunity to contribute. In this case the former mistakes are better seen from the outside and a fresh, unexpected view of the problem is more likely.
Everyone absorbs suggestions from the circle participants as they would otherwise absorb information from special books and reference books. In essence, everyone in such a circle becomes part of the collective mind.
As the solution to the problem goes round several times, the lines are blurred between the options offered. This commonality of solutions is highlighted and emphasized by the moderator of the circle. Thus, step by step, or rather, circle by circle, the solution becomes unified, common. It is important and very interesting that, in fact, the participants of the circle by their interaction, their efforts build a midline of individual decisions, which allows them to achieve their goal.
We believe that the circle method is relevant today and reveals many possibilities.
Participant’s impression of the work in the circle
I want to share my experience of participating in an unusual event for me. Several strangers were seated at the table, forming a closed circle. In the beginning, the atmosphere was a little tense. The moderator announced the rules and the problem that was important to everyone in the room. There was a desire to solve it accurately and correctly. The task turned out to be difficult. I had to give it some serious thought.
People became hesitant to offer their options. The answer was born in me all of a sudden and it seemed like it couldn’t be any other way. But how wrong I was! I listened to each speaker with genuine interest and was amazed to find a diversity of opinion.
My proposal had many flaws, but it was not discarded as unsuitable, although I was ready to abandon it entirely in favor of others. I didn’t even care if my option was taken into account. Like everyone else, I was interested in the only right decision. Surprisingly, opposing views were not annoying.
Some participants abandoned their seemingly clever and beautiful suggestions in favor of a single result, which of course was influenced by my opinion and the opinions of those sitting with me. And how successfully and carefully everything was taken into account in the final decision, satisfying the team! It’s like a wonderfully delicious dish that was made from different, unlikeable foods, and turned out to be a delicious concoction!
The way of decision-making in a cohesive group
The fact that group solutions in many cases are more effective than individual solutions has been noted repeatedly. In the integral approach, it is important that the decision is not imposed, but rather accepted by the group. Moreover, the more the group strives for unity, the clearer it becomes that there is a desire to rise above differing opinions.
Unanimity is a way of problem solving acquired by people in a situation where the search for unity becomes dominant in a cohesive group. A unified opinion arises in a situation where the criterion of truth is the cohesion of the group.
Together the members of the group integrate into the community of one whole. In this case, several “egoistic selves” are replaced by an “egoistic self,” in which an “altruistic self” emerges under the influence of cohesion, transforming into one “common self. And then the disagreement changes to unanimity.
The effectiveness of a group solution
There is no other means of making the right decision than unification. We see it happening in the world today: no boss can solve anything alone, and by doing so, he is bound to make a mistake.
This applies to leaders in all areas: politics, economics, commerce, industry, technology, education, culture, family. Wherever it happens-if a person makes a decision alone, the higher he stands, influencing a wider range of people with his decisions, the more serious his mistakes.
We see it happen, and the executives themselves feel they are wrong. It was different before – they knew what levers of control they had in their hands: the army, the police, the media. But that is no longer the case today. These days, anyone making a decision must initially accept that they will make a mistake. After all, a decision can only be made at the expense of connection.
It doesn’t matter at what level this connection happens. For now, it is enough to make a decision from the level at which the group tries to resemble integral Nature, to the best of its ability. In any case, it is necessary to make decisions together and to seek them out of association. Any measure of unity achieved is already sufficient for a given time, a given moment, a given level.
In this way, this group builds its own mini-reality. It has its own central point in which the group wants to reveal the property of giving and creates the tools to do so by joining together, cancelling each self in mutual vouchsafing. And already within this group a complete model of the entire universe is created.
Bibliography
- G.M. Andreeva. Social Psychology. Moscow: Aspect Press, 1999.
- Dontsov A.I. Problems of group cohesion. М., 1979.
- Lightman M. IAC Archive. URL: https://kabbalahmedia.info/ru/
- Chemerinskaya Yu. How to preserve drive in hard times. O.:Mann, Ivanov & Ferber, 2014
- The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language: Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia: OGIZ, 1935-1940. ed. by D.M. Ushakov.
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
This material is part of the Integral Psychology course being developed at the Integral World Research Institute (IWRI). Sci. course editor: prof. Eliab. General Course Editor: T. Asher. Selection of material: A. Feigin and N. Vainrub. Course Secretary: V. Shaposhnikova. Lit-editor: A. Aleksandrova.
