‘Instructor’s name’
- Groupthink
A groupthink is a phenomenon whereby the in-group pressure leads to deterioration of effective decision making. For example, a group member may try to achieve an informal goal just to preserve his/her friendship with other group member. Groupthink prevails when there is a need to conform. The ‘Bay of pigs’ operation is a classic example of the groupthink paradox. In this case, the drive for consensus precluded analyzing crucial information necessary for the achievement of the ultimate goal. The first step to avoid groupthink is to put together an effective team, which has a range of personalities and perceptions. The second way to counter groupthink is to anticipate groupthink and plan ahead to counter it, while planning the meeting. And finally, groupthink can be reduced by having structured and lengthy discussion and delay the rush to judgment.
- Helen Negotiating with Oscar
A good negotiation should give the following benefits – it should increase profit, give better marketability to the product, save time and money, reduce conflicts, and improve relations. There are two options available for Helen – she can choose the distributive strategy or integrative strategy. Distributive strategy involves trying to derive maximum out of the deal, while Integrative strategy involves trying to reach a deal which benefits both the parties. Helen would be better advised to choose an integrative strategy, as a ‘win-win’ situation for both the parties involved make negotiation much more fruitful than a ‘win-lose’ situation. The “BATNA” or the best alternative to a negotiated strategy would involve Helen deciding on a list of alternatives, and identify the best possible alternative for this particular situation. My advice to Helen will be to be honest about her intentions and agree to only those terms which she can fulfill. Transparency and a direct approach would benefit Helen in this situation.
- Fundamental attribution error
A fundamental attribution error occurs when a problem which we think is because of a person is actually because of a situation. A friend of mine had conflicts with me because of this error of judgment in his part. First, when I visited his office I got the feeling he was not paying attention to me, and he was annoyed when I conveyed this to him. Later, we found out that the he was facing his computer during our meetings and the constant inflow of emails distracted him. Next time when we met he discussed things with me with his computer screen facing the other side and the relation between us improved. The other such occasion is one of my friend who is a supervisor in factory was irritated with his workers because of the decrease in quality of production. He thought they were spending time in unproductive aspects and were lazy. But later one of the crucial equipment was detected to have had a repair, which slowed down the production and my friend realized his mistake. Thus, a closer scrutiny of a situation will go a long way in improving relations between persons.
- Theory X and Theory Y
McGregor’ theory X assumes that workers are inherently lazy and thus require close supervision with a close span of control. Theory Y assumes employees to be self-motivated and believes that employees can exercise self-control. My advice to George would be a combination of both these management approaches. While a strict supervision is needed in terms of quality of food and service, management can give a free reign to the workers in other administrative functions. George should have other trusted managers to whom he can delegate certain spans of the managerial functions (theory Y) and ask them to have a close watch over their subordinates (theory X). At the end of the day, George should aim to give his employees the proper work environment and work perks that would make them self- motivated.
Diversity
The main advantage of diversity in a group is that you get creativity in decision making. Since there are eight different persons posted in eight different countries you get better understanding of the local market. Each person can send in unique data about the local tastes, culture, and preferences, which will hugely help in decision making. It will also increase worker satisfaction as they play a part in decision making thus getting a fairer treatment.
However, this diversifying can succeed only if there is true openness among the group members. The management should make the eight delegates feel valued and communicate to them their missions and goals. The work environment should stimulate personal growth and give due importance to the variety of opinions that would flow from such varied geography.
Geert Hofstede provides a framework for cross-cultural communication. His four part typology involves analyzing factors such as Individualism vs. Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity Vs Femininity. For example, in Japan the manager would find collectivism is given more importance by culture than in say the US where individualism is valued more. In Japan, employee decisions are to be taken by considering group values while in the US it should be taken based on personal growth.
Four possible barriers to communication in this group would be- physiological limitations, selective expectation, partial listening and distortion, and cultural limitations. These limitations can be overcome by building Cultural intelligence, avoiding ethnocentrism, having structured discussions, planned meetings, and not considering culture as a problem.
