PLS 308 – Public Administration

Topic: Decision Making

Decision Making
Decision making involves choosing between two or more alternatives
− Remember that not making a decision is a decision
− It has four major elements
− Problem definition: clearly there are more issues, questions, and problems than
individuals or society has the time or resources to confront.
− Problems are plentiful; attention is scarce.
− In order for problems to get attention they have to first get on the policy agenda
− As the problem emerges and gains attention, it also tends to gain focus and take
shape
− See problem definition notes below.
− Information search: The definition between problem definition and information is
never sharp. When we are vaguely aware of some problem, our first step is often to
learn more about it. This learning process often gives the problem focus.
− Time is often a big factor in information search. When time is short we often
satisfice rather than optimize (see discussion on bounded rationality below).
− Choice: Weighing options and selecting among alternatives are often the visible part
of decision-making processes.
− However, choices are rarely clear and when clear alternatives are know, the
consequences of these actions is often poorly understood.
− Similarly, our preferences are rarely clear or constant when viewed over time.
− Evaluation: Decisions do not end with a choice among alternatives. Few choices are
final and most are continually reconsidered in light of new information.
− Even if choices are not repeated, current choices become precedents for future
decision
− Most difficult aspect of evaluating choices is to establish criteria for evaluation
and to not fall victim to common decision-making problems like cognitive
bolstering (discussed below) where you search for information to justify rather
than scrutinize past decisions.
Constraints on decision making
− Upper Limits of a Decision: Limitations on how far a decisionmaker can go
− Lower Limits of a Decision: Minimum that must occur for problem to be solved
− Strategic Limiting Factors: Factor whose availability in the right form, at the right place
and time will establish a new system of conditions
Individual differences: individuals have different decision-making styles
− Different ways of thinking (e.g., some are logical, some process information serially,
some are intuitive or creative, some view interconnections better than others, etc.)
− Some are more tolerant of ambiguity

-1-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

− Combination of these two factors creates four styles

− Directive style have low tolerance for ambiguity and seek rationality
− Analytical types accept ambiguity and seek rationality
− Conceptual style tend to be intuitive and accept ambiguity
− Behavioral styles work well with others, are intuitive and have a low tolerance for
ambiguity
Organizational constraints
− Managers are strongly influenced by the criteria that they will be evaluated on
− Reward systems influences decisionmakers by suggesting to them what choices are
preferable in terms of a personal payoff
− Organizations often impose time constraints
− Organizations often give preference to historical precedents and decisions are often made
in the context of a stream of decisions
Decisionmakers tend to rely on heuristics, judgmental shortcuts, when making decisions
− Availability heuristic: the tendency for people to base their judgments on information that
is readily available to them
− Representative heuristic: Decisionmakers tend to assess the likelihood of an occurrence
by trying to match it with a preexisting category
− Escalation of commitment: is an increased commitment to a pervious decision in spite of
negative information
Improving Creativity
− Direct instruction: ask people to be creative. It works because people tend to accept
obvious solutions and this often prevents people from exploring creative solutions
− Attribute listing: list attributes of alternatives and examine them fully to generate new
alternatives or eliminate them
− Lateral thinking: instead of thinking beginning to end, other avenues are explored –
perhaps starting with the solution and working towards the beginning
Cultural differences
− People from different cultures often make decisions in different ways by giving different
importance to rationality, their belief in the ability of people to solve problems, and
emphasis on solving problems

Rational Decision Making Process

Ration decisionmakers are value maximizers that try to reach an optimum decision given a
set of constraints
− Model of decision making is commonly attributed to economists who have a clear and
consistent system of preferences, knowledge choices, and computation tools that permit
the selection of the optimum choice
Six steps in the rational model
− Define the problem
− Identify decision criteria
− Weight the criteria
− Generate alternatives
− Rate each alternative on each criterion
− Compute the optimal decision

-2-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

Assumptions
− Problem Clarity: problem is clear and unambiguous
− Known options: decisionmakers can identify all of the alternatives and relevant decision
criteria. Decisionmakers must also be aware of all of the possible consequences
associated with each alternatives
− Clear preferences: criteria and alternatives can be ranked and weighted to reflect and
analyze their importance
− Constant preferences: specific decision criteria and the weights remain stable over time
− No time or cost constraints: rational decisionmakers can obtain full information about the
criteria and alternatives because there are no time or cost constraints
− Maximum payoff: the rational decisionmaker will choose the alternative producing the
highest payoff
Strengths
− Focuses on the need to translate lofty goals into concrete action
− Priority setting
− Structure follows strategy
− Design organization after goals have been established
− Recognizes the need to analyze, experiment, or evaluate to see what works
− Highlights the role of feedback throughout the process
− Recognizes that you must periodically scan the environment for new threats and
opportunities
− Requires rigorous communication about goals, alternatives, and resource allocation
Weaknesses
− Announcement of goals and policies can centralize and freeze an organization
− Goals and policies provide a focal point for organizing opposition
− Goals and policies can be very difficult to change
− De-emphasizes role of politics, bargaining, human behavior, and other subjective factors
− Assumes that the planner can peer into the future
Limits to strict rationality
− Typically there is uncertainty about both means and ends
− Can almost never clearly determine the risks and payoffs associated with each alternative
− Rarely are all alternatives and their consequences known
− Preferences are often unformed and changing
− Rarely have the time, resources, energy, or mental capacity to evaluate all alternatives
and their consequences
− Too mechanical an approach to what is a much more complex process

Bounded Rationality
When most people are faced with complex problems, people often respond by reducing the
problem to a level that is readily understood
− When faced with a choice, most decisionmakers do not struggle to fine the best, or
optimal, solution, most stop when they find the first acceptable solution – a concept
Simon (1947) calls satisficing

-3-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

Model recognizes the inherent limitations of the rational model

− Problem is often not clearly defined
− Values and goals are not always clearly defined
− Knowledge of consequences is always fragmented, incomplete, or totally unavailable
− Lack of information on the problem, the alternatives, the criteria, and the impact of
choosing certain alternative seriously limit the judgments of decisionmakers
− Time and cost constraints seriously limit the search for full information
− Imperfections in humans also limit the acquisition and analysis of information
Concept of satisficing or bounded rationality was developed by Simon (1947)
− For large-scale decisions the there is too much information and uncertainty which
overloads the cognitive capacities of managers
− Managers are intendedly rational in that they strive for rationality
− They do not optimize, they satisfice: they search for solutions that are both satisfactory
and sufficient
− list of criteria is far from exhaustive and are looking for a solution that is good enough or
will achieve an acceptable level of performance
− A satisficing choice is the first acceptable one a decisionmaker encounters
Advantages of Bounded Rationality
− Theories of decision making should be based on human capacities
− Even if the thorough search and deliberate choice associated with strict rational choice
were possible, the effort might not be worth the reward due to the high decision costs it
would impose
− If the information is not immediately or readily available, adhering to the cannons of
strict rationality will only encourage delay
Steps are the same as the rational model, but there is only a limited search and evaluation of
alternatives and decisionmakers “satisfice” instead of optimize

Incremental Model
Incremental model is generally associated with politics and the political approach to public
administration. Dual argument for its use:
− It is the approach most characteristic of American public administration
− It is the model that should be used
Lindbloom (1959, 1980) and others view the policy-making process as a response to short-
term political conditions, by small increments, according to events and developments, and
not according to rational, information-based analysis
− Agrees with the notion of bounded rationality
Incremental decisionmaker is more concerned with reaching an agreement on a final outcome
than making an “optimal” decision
Assumptions
− Model does not assume a clear definition of goals (objectives) of decisions
Steps
− Approach begins with an existing situation where means and ends are often intermixed
− Analysis is limited and focused on alternatives that can be agreed upon or accepted
− Decision-making process is pragmatic and concerned with reaching agreement among the
parties involved

-4-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

− The decisional tools and calculations are less objective and less systematic than the
rational model
− Tends to use bargaining and compromising techniques that provide for the
proportional representation of interests, minimize conflict, and lead to agreement
− Administrators strive for satisfactory decisions after examining a rather limited set of
alternatives
Limitations of the rational model are not necessarily the strengths of the incremental model.
− It undermines many of the traditional values of public administration such as economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness
− Often results in political alliances and power centers that dominate decision processes in
organizations.
− Often criticized for its inherent conservative outlook that seeks adjustments to the status
quo and avoids radical departures
− It is based on a bargaining concept, which often doesn’t work well when resources are
limited. Bargaining also obscures the real desires of participants in the decision making
process. Accordingly, it can get too wrapped up in political gamesmanship
− Incrementalists often downplay the use of models which provide clear information and
delineate alternatives
− There is a lack of imagination in that there is no way to do something “new”. Only a
little more or less of the same. It is inherently conservative

Nonrational Theories of Decision Making

Attempt to explain seemingly chaotic decision processes and are fundamentally different
from rational models
− However, rational and nonrational approaches are not inherently contradictory in that
subscribing to one framework does not require rejecting the other
− Differences between rational and nonrational models are based, in part, on focusing on
different aspects of the complex social processes we call choice or decision making
Basics of nonrational models
− Choices are made, but they do not result from a deliberate balancing of pros and cons or
costs and benefits
− Choices are generally described as decision outcomes resulting from the interaction
between two structures or sets of rules
− Decision structures are sets of rules that determine what problems and solutions will be
allowed for discussion and how disagreements will be resolved
− Rules-based on majority vote, consensus, or arbitrary authority will obviously yield
different results
− Access structures are sets of rule that define which individuals or groups have standing
and are allowed to participate in decision making
− Nonrational models suggest that decision outcomes result from the interaction of decision
and access structures rather than by the calculation of expected utility or maximizing
objectives
Nonrational models suggest that determining and enforcing rules of the game is more
important to the decision-making process than is careful analysis
− Accordingly, nonrational models are inherently political in nature

-5-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

Decision outcomes (choices) are the result of the mix of actors, problems, and solutions

Garbage Can Model

It gives a sense for how decisions are made when decisionmakers have pervasive differences
of opinion. Accordingly, it is primarily an organizational model -- organized anarchies
− Goals are unclear and often conflict
− Participation in decision-making is unpredictable and fluid
− An agency is more or less a loose collection of ideas and proposals rather than a well
ordered structure
− Information comes into play at multiple points in the decision-making process and is
interpreted in various ways
− Organization is a collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking
for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which
they might be the answer, and decisionmakers looking for work
− Decisions are made in when different streams come together
Organized anarchies have three characteristics
− Members of the organization do not define their preferences about policies and goals very
precisely. In those rare occasions when they are defined precisely, they often conflict
with each other. Organization is a “loose collection of ideas” instead of a coherent
structure. It discovers its preferences through action more than it acts on the basis of
preferences.
− Technology is as unclear as the preferences. Many members do not understand what all
aspects of organization do.
− Participation in decision making is extremely fluid and even erratic. Participants drift in
and out of the decision making process. Sometimes a member will attend critical
meetings other times they will not.
Organizations tend to be “loosely coupled” in that the members have loose control and
communication with one another. It is often unclear who has the authority to make certain
decisions. Remain loosely engaged, even for important issues, because other matters will
preoccupy them
Decision-making process is composed of four separate streams
− Problems
− Problems arise and disappear, change shape or significance, and are combined and
separated over time - Issues come to be defined as problems and become the focus of
government action
− Solutions
− Policymakers draw their solutions to problems from a standard “tool kit” or
entrepreneurs may advocate and win approval for innovative solutions that define
new ways of responding to problems on the agenda
− Participants
− Participants move in and out of situations in which choices are made termed “choice
opportunities” in which they look for chances to promote their ideas or themselves.
Ideas, analyses, arguments, persuasion, and less visible participants (Bureaucrats,
congressional staff, lobbyists, and think tanks) may influence the most.
− Choice opportunities

-6-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

− Problems, political, and policy streams rarely connect. When they do connect -
“Coupling” - policy entrepreneurs take advantage of these windows of opportunity to
make major policy changes.
When the four streams do connect with each other, the result is often a major decision.
Connecting up these four streams is described as the “garbage can model”.
− Decisions are the function of a mix of problems, solutions, participants, and participants
resources (i.e., the garbage can) and how that mix is processed
− “Choice opportunity” is the mix that occurs within the garbage can
Effectiveness hinges on the ability to reach consensus on matching a problem with a solution
This model appears to have great utility in public organizations
Implications of the garbage can model for understanding government decision making
− Turf battles and other struggles over who has access to deliberations and who has the
right to make choices are a central element of decision making
− Solutions and problems may arise independently
− At times, decisionmakers invent novel solutions for problems
− Other times, decisionmakers have solutions and look for problems in which to use
them, or advance their use
− It describes how decisions are guided and manipulated. The particular mix of
problems, solutions, and actors is not necessarily accidental

Consensus Models
Involves more than one decision strategy and may use various decision rules
Decision structures include
− Voting
− Agreement of a small group of people who are generally experts who act in a jury-like
process
− When the group of experts deliberates a decision, relies upon a consultant, and follows
certain steps, it may be following a simplified form of Delphi technique which helps
refine group judgment by
− Establishing a clear, operational question or problem for the group to work on (often
the consultant’s job)
− Generate ideas in writing from all participants about the question/problem before
discussion begins to maximize the variety of views
− Conduct discussions in an environment that does not inhibit the diversity of ideas and
opinions, but does discourage lobbying for any part of a decision
− Involves carefully controlled feedback that establishes the outcome in clear, specific,
and manageable numbers of prioritized items
− Merges judgments of people with computational techniques
− Individual initiative is another widely used strategy where the leading manager makes
decisions with the support of senior staff

-7-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

Administrative Routine
The garbage can model and consensus models describe a level of fluidity and change that
often does not exist in government decision making. Especially when attention shifts from
major issues to minor administrative matters
Decision and access structures are much more rigid and fixed. Participation and decision
making become more rule bound
− Overtime, rules will become accepted as givens, simply the way things are done
Two step process called institutionalization
− Involves first codifying the rules of access and decision making in the form of both
written directives and unwritten norms, and then internalizing the rules to the point that
they are no longer seen as choices to be reconsidered
− As the decision process becomes rule bound, major choices begin to be based not on
rational analysis nor on the fluid mix of solutions, problems, and participants, but instead
rely on what March and Olsen (1984) call the political structure
The institutionalized political structure often precludes many problems from consideration
and many groups from influence

Reasonable Choice Models

Both rational and nonrational models while providing well articulated theories of decision
making, but both types of models tend to be somewhat impersonal
− Taken to extremes, both rational and nonrational models reduce human judgment to
computation
− Nonrational models portray decision outcomes as the result of forces beyond individual
control
A less clearly articulated, but emerging view of decision making places a stronger emphasis
on value statements and interpretations of history
− Values enter rational decision models in the form of preferences, but these preferences
are generally defined in terms of self-interest
− Both the rational and nonrational models attempt to be value neutral models of choice
Underneath our analysis of problems, alternatives, and desired outcomes are beliefs and
values that we may not be entirely aware of, but they invisibly guide our decisions
− The criterion of reasonable choice is the combination of bounded rationality and values
One of the clearest ways values shape decision making is in our reliance on history
− Our recollections, both personal and learned, have a strong grip on our perceptions
− To ignore history disregards the successes and failures of our predecessors and our
heritage of values.
− However, to assume that future events will repeat the past (e.g., the next war will be like
the past) overlooks contemporary changes in the nature of the problem and the situation
Richard Neustadt and Ernest May (1986) in Thinking in Time: The Use of History for
Decision-Makers examine the positive uses of history in decision making is examined
− They argue that history guides choices by altering how problems and solutions are
perceived
− History guides decision making primarily through analogy
− When ever we see an event we immediately compare it to some similar event
− Choice of analogies is rarely the conscious and not subject to critical analysis

-8-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

− Historical analogies enter deliberations as interpretations of events based on personal and

institutional histories
− Uses of history reflect our values. Therefore, use of analogies can be improved if they
are more closely scrutinized
− The suggest a closer examination of the similarities and differences between the
current situation and our choice of historical analogies

Group Decision Making Techniques

Nominal group Technique
− Ensures every group member has equal input in the process by restricting interpersonal
communication during the decision-making process
− Work alone and write down ideas to solve a problem
− No discussion until all ideas presented
− Open discussion to clarify, no criticism
− Secret ballot on preferred solution to rank order options
− Repeat steps if necessary
Devil’s Advocate
− Challenge the assumptions and assertions of the group
Brainstorming
− Generate ideas without criticism
Dialectical Inquiry
− Assign groups with a role to play
Electronic meetings
− Can blend techniques like brainstorming and nominal group technique using new
software technology
− Allows for anonymity, honesty, and speed. Moreover, participants do not have to be
physically present at the same location
Collaborative, Consensus Decision Making
− Collaboration = the pooling of ideas and/or resources (e.g., information, money, etc.) by
2 or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems which neither can solve independently
− Ranges from discussing problems to reaching agreement on binding actions
− Decisions are made by consensus. In other words, all parties more-or-less agree to
decisions. Very different than majority rule
− Collaborative, consensus-based decision-making effort may use some of the other
group decision-making techniques as well
− Emerging process - It is unclear to what extent it improves natural resource
management
− Implications of using collaborative/consensus-based decision making
− Requires new skills as you go from expert opinion role to an empowerment role as a
mediator, catalyst, or broker
− Requires lateral decision-making instead of hierarchical
− Need to conceptualize problems from organizational perspectives
− Need a domain perspective where an agency is just one of many actors joined by a
common set of interests or problems
− Need more flexible organizational procedures

-9-
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

− Examples: Standing committees, associations, friends groups, open decision-making

− All emphasize sustained dialog between stakeholders to resolve differences and to
advance a shared vision
− Public input must be tailored to the unique demands of a situation rather than using the
same approach in all situations or for all issues
− Advantages to Consensus Decision-Making
− Ensures that affected interests are part of the decision-making process
− Encourages participants to work towards mutually acceptable solutions
− Considers diverse perspectives and interests
− Encourages the cooperative systematic analysis of technical information
− Process results in mutually acceptable decisions while improving relationships among
diverse and competing interest groups
− Obstacles to Collaborative and Consensus Decision Making
− Institutional
− Culture may hinder collaboration, may be resistant to decentralized decision
making, lack the necessary flexibility in agency procedures
− Advocacy groups may resist collaboration because they view compromise as
watering down of their principles
− Relational factors
− Organizations that have been bitter adversaries in the past often find it difficult to
reach consensus on anything
− Attempts at collaboration could actually deepen divisions by encouraging parties
to “protect their turf” and find other avenues to achieve their desired outcomes
− Power differences
− Collaboration may be hindered when power differences exist between parties.
− Some participants may not be perceived as having a legitimate right to participate
in consensus based forums which tend to view participants as equals
− Obstacles may be difficult to overcome when:
− Conflict is rooted in basic ideological differences
− One stakeholder has the power to take unilateral action
− Constitutional issues or legal precedents are sought
− Past interventions have been unsuccessful
− Issues are too threatening because of historical antagonism
− A legitimate convenor can’t be found
− These instances are likely to result in litigation or limited collective action.
− Negotiators and convenors need to make a realistic assessment of their ability to
overcome these obstacles
Nominal group technique, dialectical inquiry, and devil’s advocate tend to produce more
information and greater range of choices. However, participants tend to feel better about
decisions made using a collaborative consensus based process

- 10 -
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

When to Use Group Decision-Making

Problem is uncertain, complex, and has potential for conflict
Problem requires interagency/intergroup cooperation
Problem and solution have important personal/organizational consequences
Significant, but not immediate, deadline pressures
Widespread acceptance and commitment are critical to successful implementation

Advantages and Disadvantages of Groups

Advantages
− Can bring in more knowledge, information, approaches, and alternatives and thus leads to
a broader perspective for defining problems
− Assist diagnosing underlying cause and effects
− Participation can increase the organizational members’ understanding and acceptance of
decisions
− More complete knowledge and information tends to be generated
− Greater diversity and thinking leads to innovative solutions
− Members have a better idea of what the group decided and why and can carry this
information back to others in the organization
− Easier to implement in that it can lead to greater acceptance of decisions
Disadvantages
− Time-consuming
− Expensive
− Results in compromise solutions
− Hard to assess responsibility for decisions
− Social pressures can bolster majority decisions regardless of their quality
− Aggressive members can stifle more capable members
− Groups may press for conformity and move toward solutions too rapidly by stifling
dissent
− Some members concentrate only on winning from their own individual or unit’s
perspective
− Groups may make riskier decisions by creating an environment which disperses
responsibility for a decision

Common Flaws in Decision Making

Stereotyping
− Stereotyping reduces complex choices to simplistic formulas
− When faced with complex problems, people tend to simplify the problem. While this can
help determine the important outlines of a problem, these simplifications can become
one-dimensional caricatures of people and problems that can place blinders on
decisionmakers. This can limit decision making
− Examples are numerous
− People who receive government aid are lazy welfare cheats
Cognitive Bolstering
− The information search process is often narrowed by the need to justify or explain
previous choices

- 11 -
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

− Cognitive bolstering involves magnifying the value of chosen action and denigrating the
value of rejected alternatives
− Achieved by exaggerating favorable consequences, minimizing unfavorable
consequences, denying adverse feelings, minimizing personal responsibility, and
other means
− It represents the abandonment of critical evaluation of information which is increased by
stress
− When individuals are forced to make rapid decisions based on uncertain information
and are held accountable for results, they spend considerable effort highlighting
information supporting their views and suppressing information that raises doubts
Defensive Avoidance
− Defensive avoidance occurs when individuals commonly avoid making decisions which
have unpleasant choices or entail risk
− One form of defensive avoidance is similar to cognitive bolstering it involves suppressing
or ignoring information which could require action
− Often involves avoiding decisions by obsessional mulling over information and options
− Gathering more and more information becomes a means of avoidance
− Not making a decision is a choice with consequences just as making a decision has
consequences
Entrapment (Escalation of Commitment)
− Negative side of commitment. In most cases, commitment to groups and decisions is
positive. Unfortunately, individuals can become committed to failures as well as
successes
− When individuals publicly announce their commitment to a course of action it becomes
difficult for the to change their minds. There prestige and careers may be associated with
its success or failure
− Once commitment is made, we make every attempt to make it work. This can result in
the “escalation of commitment” hoping that additional effort will make it work
− The throwing good money after bad money scenario
− As a result, commitment can restrict the evaluation of information or the choice of
alternatives
− This course of action is particularly likely when evidence of success or failure is unclear.
− When there is even the faint hope of successes prior commitment will encourage future
commitment
Groupthink
− All of the above problems can be amplified in group settings, while groupthink is
primarily a group problem
− Groups tend to seek and enforce unanimity. Dissent is suppressed and conformity of
behavior is suppressed
− Irving Janis (1972) calls the extreme suppression of minority of dissenting views
groupthink. Groupthink occurs when the pressures for conformity are so extreme that the
group acts as if it had only one mind. This robs the group of one of its primary assets --
the critical, evaluative faculties of the group members

- 12 -
PLS 308 – Public Administration Lecture Notes - Imperial

− Groupthink has eight symptoms. Note how they include the four problems above. The
end result of these eight symptoms is the loss of critical evaluation of information and
options
− The group shares an illusion of its own superiority and invulnerability. Members see
themselves as the “best and brightest”
− The group collectively avoids and discounts information that calls into question either
its choices or its own superiority. members engage in collective cognitive bolstering
− The group believes in the inherent morality of its goals. This is especially common in
groups working for a specific cause or an elected official. Members equate their
views with the public interest.
− The group develops negative stereotypes of other groups and of dissenters. These
stereo types allow the group to dismiss out-of-hand legitimate challenges
− The group attempts to silence internal dissenters. Dissenters are often the brunt of
jokes that emphasize their disloyalty
− Group members censor their own self-doubts. They internalize group pressures to
conform.
− Even though overt and self-censorship is prevalent, the group perceives the lack of
dissent as unanimity.
− Certain members of the group take on the role of “mind guards” or watchmen who
protect leaders and the group from dissenting views
− Groupshift is a special case of groupthink. The decision of the group may be riskier or
more cautious than individual decisions. The greater occurrence is to shift towards risk
− Examples of disasters attributed in part to groupthink include President Kennedy’s Bay of
Pigs fiasco and the Challenger Disaster
− Steps you can take to avoid groupthink
− encourage members to act as critical evaluators and impartial decisionmakers
− Accept criticisms of your own actions
− Invite outside experts to join the discussion and criticize conclusions
− Require members to discuss the matters with others outside the group
− Assign two or more groups to work on a problem separately
− Assign a member to play devil’s advocate
− Break the group into subgroups at key points
− Set aside time to review threats to the groups decisions and possible weaknesses in
them
− At major decision points hold last chance sessions in which members can air their
reservations

- 13 -