Unanimity Rule and Organizational Decision Making: A Simulation Model

Unanimity rule is an important benchmark for evaluating outcomes of decisions in the social sciences. However, organizational researchers tend to ignore unanimous decision making, for example, because unanimity may be difficult to realize in large groups and may suffer from individual participants blocking decisions. This paper reconsiders unanimity rule in view of the development of circular systems for organizing decision making. It focuses on developing a theory of decision making under unanimity rule. The author uses a system dynamics model to explore the conditions under which unanimity rule supports the organization's ability to make decisions. Simulation experiments suggest that the dynamics and outcomes of unanimous decision making under and exceeding a critical threshold level of decision pressure are fundamentally different. Under this critical threshold, the decision-making system is capable of recovering from severe shocks to the system. If decision pressure is close to its threshold, a relatively small change can cause the decision process to collapse. In this respect, large groups operating under unanimity rule are less sustainable because they are more likely to exceed their critical threshold than small groups. Decomposing the decision-making system in small units, embedded in a hierarchical structure, therefore appears to be a necessary condition for sustainable performance in large organizations applying unanimity rule.

[1]  W. Alan Randolph,et al.  Can organizational empowerment work in multinational settings , 2002 .

[2]  A. Sinclair.  The Tyranny of a Team Ideology , 1992 .

[3]  Herbert A. Simon.  The new science of management decision. , 1960 .

[4]  Hannu Nurmi,et al.  Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them , 1999 .

[5]  D. Meadows.  Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World , 1974 .

[6]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  The Development of an Intragroup Norm and the Effects of Interpersonal and Structural Challenges , 1991 .

[7]  C. Gersick.  MARKING TIME: PREDICTABLE TRANSITIONS IN TASK GROUPS , 1989 .

[8]  van Vlissingen,et al.  A Management System Based on Consent , 1991 .

[9]  A. Georges L. Romme,et al.  A note on the hierarchy-team debate , 1996 .

[10]  S. Deetz.  Democracy in an age of corporate colonization : developments in communication and the politics of everyday life , 1992 .

[11]  Christopher Grey,et al.  Trust, Control and Post-Bureaucracy , 2001 .

[12]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Conflict and Strategic Choice: How Top Management Teams Disagree , 1997 .

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

[14]  Raymond A. Katzell,et al.  New Patterns of Management. , 1963 .

[15]  A. Simmons,et al.  On the Edge of Anarchy , 1995 .

[16]  Jean-Claude Thoenig,et al.  Rethinking the Firm: Organizational Approaches , 2003 .

[17]  Amartya Sen,et al.  Rationality and Social Choice , 1995 .

[18]  N. Repenning,et al.  Disaster Dynamics: Understanding the Role of Quantity in Organizational Collapse , 2002 .

[19]  Randall G. Holcombe,et al.  The Unanimous Voting Rule is not the Political Equivalent to Market Exchange , 2001 .

[20]  Denis Collins,et al.  The Ethical Superiority and Inevitability of Participatory Management as an Organizational System , 1997 .

[21]  Norbert L. Kerr,et al.  Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions. , 1978 .

[22]  Lawrence J. Sanna,et al.  Group Performance And Interaction , 1998 .

[23]  Sidney C. Sufrin,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. , 1966 .

[24]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Handbook of organization studies , 1997 .

[25]  H. Simon,et al.  The Organization of Complex Systems , 1977 .

[26]  Brian E. Mennecke,et al.  Using group support systems to discover hidden profiles: an examination of the influence of group size and meeting structures on information sharing and decision quality , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research , 1989 .

[28]  James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock.  The Calculus of Consent , 1962 .

[29]  Kathleen M. Carley.  Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover , 1992 .

[30]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[31]  K. Arrow.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[32]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  The Blackwell Companion to Organizations , 2002 .

[33]  John D. Sterman,et al.  System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002 .

[34]  Joseph M. Whitmeyer.  Power through Appointment , 2000 .

[35]  G. Kreweras.  Creating the corporate future: Russell L. ACKOFF Wiley, New York, 1981, xi + 297 pages, £10.85 , 1982 .

[36]  G. Northcraft,et al.  You have printed the following article : Why Differences Make a Difference : A Field Study of Diversity , Conflict , and Performance in Workgroups , 2007 .

[37]  M. Bazerman.  Judgment in Managerial Decision Making , 1990 .

[38]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  The Use of Modular Organizational Forms: An Industry-Level Analysis , 2001 .

[39]  H. Simon,et al.  The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.) , 1996 .

[40]  F. Restle,et al.  The road to agreement: Subgroup pressures in small group consensus processes. , 1974 .

[41]  J. Gillon,et al.  Group dynamics , 1996 .

[42]  Howard Hunt Pattee,et al.  Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems , 1973 .

[43]  Ranan D. Kuperman.  The extent of dissent: The effect of group composition and size on Israeli decisions to confront low intensity conflict , 2002 .

[44]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[45]  James P. Walsh,et al.  Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation , 1988 .

[46]  Gerald L. Clore,et al.  Interracial Attitudes and Behavior at a Summer Camp. , 1978 .

[47]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  It's About Time: Temporal Structuring in Organizations , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[48]  Geoffrey Brennan,et al.  Democracy and decision , 1993 .

[49]  Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard,et al.  An Empirical Example of the Condorcet Paradox of Voting in a Large Electorate , 2001 .

[50]  E. Lazega.  Introduction : Collegial Phenomenon : The Social Mechanisms of Cooperation Among Peers in a Corporate Law Partnership , 2001 .

[51]  M. Olson,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups , 1969 .

[52]  A. Georges L. Romme,et al.  Making a Difference: Organization as Design , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[53]  Mario Catalani,et al.  How and When Unanimity is a Superior Decision Rule , 1996 .

[54]  Nelson P. Repenning,et al.  A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[55]  E. Mannix,et al.  The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. , 2001 .

[56]  E. Jaques,et al.  In praise of hierarchy. , 1990, Harvard business review.

[57]  Gerardo A. Okhuysen,et al.  The Speed Trap: Exploring the Relationship Between Decision Making and Temporal Context , 2002 .

[58]  A. Dennis.  Information Exchange and Use in Small Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[59]  P. Goodman.  Groups That Work (and Those That Don't)Groups That Work (and Those That Don't) by Hackman Richard. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991, 512 pp. , 1992 .

[60]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes. , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[61]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The new science of management decision , 1960 .

[62]  E. Lazega.  The Collegial Phenomenon , 2001 .

[63]  Kenneth S. Law,et al.  Collectivistic and Individualistic Values: Their Effects on Group Dynamics and Productivity in China , 2003 .

[64]  H. Hansmann,et al.  The Ownership of Enterprise , 1996 .

[65]  A. Simmons,et al.  On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society , 1993 .

[66]  Graciela Chichilnisky,et al.  Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for a Resolution of the Social Choice Paradox , 1981 .

[67]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why* , 2003 .

[68]  G. Marwell,et al.  A Theory of the Critical Mass. I. Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the Production of Collective Action , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[69]  Robert S. Dooley,et al.  Belaboring the Not-So-Obvious: Consensus, Commitment, and Strategy Implementation Speed and Success , 2000 .

[70]  Elaine Mosakowski,et al.  Strategy Making Under Causal Ambiguity: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence , 1997 .

[71]  Hsin-Ginn Hwang,et al.  The effect of group size on group performance in computer-supported decision making , 1994, Inf. Manag..

[72]  A. Romme,et al.  Domination, Self-Determination and Circular Organizing , 1999 .

[73]  Linda L. Putnam,et al.  Metaphors of Communication and Organization , 1999 .

[74]  D. Schweiger,et al.  The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision‐making , 1989 .

[75]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Escalation of commitment in individual and group decision making , 1984 .

[76]  C. Fiol.  Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. , 1994 .

[77]  David Courpasson,et al.  Indifference or Obedience? Business Firms as Democratic Hybrids , 2003 .

[78]  Joseph J. Martocchio,et al.  Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.