Examples of structured forms of decision-making include parliamentary procedure, alternative examination procedure, and information search procedure. When a team uses such methodical decision-making methods, it adheres to a highly systematic decision-making process. Teams that use structured techniques are less likely to fall into the groupthink trap, since structured techniques promote constructive criticism, nonconformity, and open-mindedness within the decision-making team. Without adequate decision procedures, highly cohesive teams will make poor decisions (Neck, p. 550).

Expert-based technique is an alternative to structured technique. Experts make the decisions. When a team works on well-structured tasks, structured techniques usually lead to more effective decisions than do expert-based techniques (Priem, p. 694).

The stepladder technique improves team communication and decision making by ensuring that every member contributes to the decision-making process. The process is delineated as follows:

Stage 1–Two team members (the initial core group) work together on a problem.

Stage 2–A third team member joins the core group and presents his/her preliminary solutions for the same problem.

Stage 3–The fourth team member joins the core group and presents his/her preliminary solutions.

Stage 4–The four members discuss until they come to a final group decision.

The number of stages increases or decreases, depending on the number of members. The structure can change to accommodate larger teams. For example, two members can enter each respective stage instead of one.

There are several prerequisites to be implemented to ensure the success of the stepladder technique. First, before each team member enters the group, they must be given the team's task and sufficient time to think about the problem. Second, the entering member must present his/her preliminary solutions before hearing the core group's preliminary solution. This constant verbalization and reiteration of team members' ideas will increase comprehension, understanding, and retention of information. Third, after each additional member joins the core group, the team needs sufficient time to discuss the problem. Fourth, the team should not come to a final decision until the entire team has formed.

The stepladder technique prevents team deficiencies in five ways.

• The technique facilitates communication by all members.
• Because members can no longer hide behind others' contributions, the technique cuts down on social loafing. A study found that stepladder team members work significantly harder on their task than their counterparts in conventional groups (Rogelberg, p. 736).
• The constant addition of a new person generates new ideas and possibly some helpful controversy. Disagreement that arises in a structured setting fosters critical thinking. Teams that freely evaluate ideas and confront controversy come to better decisions.
• The structure's communication mandate gives members the opportunity to reveal their knowledge. "If expertise is made known, the team may allocate more time for the best member to express ideas and concerns. Recent research suggests that when best members are allocated more time for communication, team decision quality is likely to be enhanced" (Rogelberg, p. 731).
• By continuously remaking decisions, the team will come to a higher-quality decision.

The stepladder technique is most useful when the decision to be made is easily definable and has not been subdivided. In addition, the technique is most practical when each piece of key information is known by at least two people. Finally, when simultaneous participation is not a prerequisite and the process is not being conducted under urgent time pressure, the stepladder technique allows for team development through multiple steps.

There are, however, some limitations to the stepladder technique. First, members need equal status, or all members must be assigned randomly to entry positions. Second, the technique needs to be modified to fit the number of team members.

The stepladder technique has exhibited considerable success when implemented into the team decision-making process. For example, teams that have used this approach "were highly satisfied with the structure, felt that everyone agreed with the team solution, felt their solution was high in quality, and felt comfortable with the climate produced by the technique" (Rogelberg, p. 736). Rogelberg's study found that "stepladder teams produced significantly higher quality decisions than did conventional teams (in which all members entered and worked on a problem at the same time). Stepladder teams' decisions surpassed the quality of their best individual member's decisions 56 percent of the time. In contrast, conventional teams' decisions surpassed the quality of their best member's decisions only 13 percent of the time" (Rogelberg, p. 730).

This is a goal-based decision-making framework based on an interpersonal model. The leader's goals include both personal goals and adopted goals for team relationships; however, the leader must resolve conflict by making tradeoffs. Priorities drive the decision process. The vote decision model is based on roll-call voting done by Congress.

The vote model process of decision-making initially begins with members voting in favor of their set goals. Such goals may be specific proposals, such as funding for a hotel's child care program, or abstract values such as fairness. Stances on the issues have a side, and a level of importance. The consequences of a stance on a given issue are represented as stances on other issues. Finally, the consequences of voting for or against a given bill are also represented as stances. Member stances are based on personal feelings, voting record, and constituency cooperation.

There are nine principles to the vote model of decision-making:

1. Decision trade off Æ Because a member has many goals and limited resources, he/she cannot realistically achieve all goals. In the effort to achieve some goals, members will have to make tradeoffs, compromises, and sacrifices.

2. Goal decomposition Æ Members can choose which goals to pursue first by breaking goals down into their original elements.

3. Principle of importance Æ The importance of a goal is proportional to the resources that the agent is willing to expend in pursuit of that goal.

4. Resource decomposition Æ Resources are also decomposed into primitive elements to use to compare and reason.

5. Cognitive resources Æ Members can allocate cognitive resources, such as attention and memory, in the pursuit of goals.

6. Cooperating agents Æ Members interact with other members through interpersonal relationships.

7. Principle of interpersonal goals Æ Adopted goals are processed uniformly as individual goals, with a priority determined by the importance of the relationship.

8. Organizational relationships Æ The principle of interpersonal goals may be extended to include goals adopted from institutions and organizations.

9.Goal-based decision-making Æ An alternative to quantitative decision analysis is a model of decision-making based on an agent's goals.

Move on to Lesson 8