The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision‐making

Previous research has found that groups using dialectical inquiry (DI) or devil's advocacy (DA) make better strategic decisions than groups using a consensus (C) approach. This paper explains those findings by using new data to show that the DI and DA approaches make better use of the capabilities of individual group members. Specifically, the DI and DA groups yielded significantly higher quality recommendations and assumptions than the average of the individuals in the respective groups, whereas the C groups did not. Moreover, the recommendations and assumptions of the DI groups and the recommendations of the DA groups significantly exceeded those of the best individual in the respective groups. There were no significant differences for the C groups.

[1]  D. Schweiger,et al.  Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus , 1986 .

[2]  Michael N. Chanin,et al.  Dialectical Inquiry in Strategic Planning: Extending the Boundaries , 1985 .

[3]  Paula L. Rechner,et al.  Inquiry method effects on performance in a simulated business environment , 1985 .

[4]  David M. Schweiger,et al.  The comparative effectiveness of dialectical inquiry and Devil's advocacy: The impact of task biases on previous research findings , 1984 .

[5]  Charles R. Schwenk.  Effects of Planning Aids and Presentation Media on Performance and Affective Responses in Strategic Decision-Making , 1984 .

[6]  D. Nees.  Simulation: A complementary method for research on strategic decision-making processes , 1983 .

[7]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  Approaches for the experimental examination of the dialectic , 1983 .

[8]  Charles R. Schwenk.  LABORATORY RESEARCH ON ILL-STRUCTURED DECISION AIDS: THE CASE OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY* , 1983 .

[9]  Dialectical inquiry in strategic decision‐making: A comment on the continuing debate , 1982 .

[10]  R. A. Cosier.  Methods for improving the strategic decisnio: Dialectic versus the Devil's advocate , 1982 .

[11]  I. Mitroff.  Talking past one's colleagues in matters of policy , 1982 .

[12]  Charles R. Schwenk.  Why sacrifice rigour for relevance? A proposal for combining laboratory and field research in strategic management , 1982 .

[13]  Charles R. Schwenk.  EFFECTS OF INQUIRY METHODS AND AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE ON PREDICTION PERFORMANCE , 1982 .

[14]  Ian I. Mitroff.  DIALECTIC SQUARED: A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION ON THE MEANINGS OF SOME KEY CONCEPTS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE* , 1982 .

[15]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  The Metaphysics of Policy and Planning: A Reply to Cosier , 1981 .

[16]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  Dialectical Inquiry in Strategic Planning: A Case of Premature Acceptance , 1981 .

[17]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  Further Thoughts on Dialectical Inquiry: A Rejoinder to Mitroff and Mason , 1981 .

[18]  J. McCann.  Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism , 1980 .

[19]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  Effects of the expert, devil's advocate, and dialectical inquiry methods on prediction performance , 1980 .

[20]  John C. Aplin,et al.  A critical view of dialectical inquiry as a tool in strategic planning , 1980 .

[21]  L. Bourgeois.  Performance and consensus , 1980 .

[22]  W. Glueck,et al.  Business Policy and Strategic Management , 1980 .

[23]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  INQUIRY METHOD, GOAL DIFFICULTY, AND CONTEXT EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE , 1980 .

[24]  I. Mitroff,et al.  On Strategic Assumption-Making: A Dialectical Approach to Policy and Planning , 1979 .

[25]  John C. Aplin,et al.  An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dialectical Inquiry Systems , 1978 .

[26]  R. A. Cosier.  The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on prediction accuracy , 1978 .

[27]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  The Application of Behavioral and Philosophical Technologies to Strategic Planning: A Case Study of a Large Federal Agency , 1977 .

[28]  David L. Ford,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF TWO NORMATIVE STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS ON ESTABLISHED AND AD HOC GROUPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVING DECISION MAKING EFFECTIVENESS , 1976 .

[29]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes , 1976 .

[30]  J. Glidewell,et al.  A Dialectical Analysis of Organizational Conflict , 1975 .

[31]  Richard O. Mason,et al.  A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning , 1969 .

[32]  B. Kintz,et al.  Computational Handbook of Statistics , 1968 .