Because criticism inhibits the free free flow of ideas, participants in brainstorming must withhold criticism criticism until all alternatives have been suggested. Because it is easier to tame down solutions than to think of them, a freewheeling discussion is desirable. The more ideas generated, the more likely someone will suggest the optimal solution. Participants should strive to improve ideas of others or to combine ideas. Brainstorming is most effective with simple and specific problems.

Delbecq and de Ven developed a method for generating alternatives that differs from brainstorming in two ways. The nominal group technique does not depend on the free association of ideas and there is little verbal interaction.

NONINAL GROUP TECHNIQUES (NGT)

RULES: MEMBERS GENERATE ALTERNATIVES SILENTLY

RECORD IDEAS ON CHALKBOARD

CLARIFY IDEAS

PRELIMINARY VOTING (SELECT 5)

DISCUSS AND RECLARIFY

FINAL VOTE

CAL1219G/DEC84

L10-AS-18

Each group member, silently and working alone, prepares a list of alternatives for achieving a stated goal. After 15 minutes, each member shares his ideas, and the leader records records them on a chalkboard. Group members then discuss and evaluate each solution. They narrow the list to five; more discussion ensues. Each member privately ranks the ideas. A secret ballot is held. The leader counts the votes and tabulates the group's preference.

The leader must not only be able to generate a list of alternatives, he must also be able to select the optimal solution, the solution that generates the highest returns at least cost. The leader must evaluate each alternative by identifying its strengths and weaknesses, benefits and costs, advantages and disadvantages in achieving the mission. Every alternative will have both costs and benefits, so evaluating involves balancing or trade-offs.

There are four basic decision-making stretegoes.

1.

Computational strategy. If there are no uncertainties present, the leader can define a decision equation and simply fill in the blanks. Most universities, for example, have developed equations for making admission decisions using high school grade point average, high school rank, quality of high school index, and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. Sometimes you will choose, not the optimum solution (the one that minimizes cost), but a satisfactory solution. A satisfactory solution is one that achieves the goal, e.g., victory in battle. An example of an optimum solution would be the defeat of the enemy without US casualties.

2. Judgmental strategy. This strategy is useful when there is uncertainty about cause-effect relationships. No formula can be used. This is a common-sense strategy where the decisionmaker focuses on the objective and proceeds to eliminate all solutions that violate one or more of the criteria that must be in the final decision. When we purchase a car, for example, we may set a limit on how much we are willing to pay. We eliminate luxury automobiles, if we set that limit at $6,500. If we set a minimum gas mileage requirement, we eliminate all large cars.

3. Compromise strategy. There are some problems where there is certainty about cause-effect relationships but uncertainty about which solution is optimum. In such a case, the decisionmaking requires information about preference from all those involved in and affected by the decision. The "best" way to proceed, then, is a compromise of all those preferences. The nominal group technique (NGT) is useful for this kind of decision.

CAL 1219G/DEC84

L10-AS-19

4.

Inspirational. The most difficult kind of decision is one where there is uncertainty about both cause and effect relationships, and preference for outcomes. For example, a leader may know that an existing policy is not working and know that it must be changed. The leader, however, may lack evidence that any alternative course of action will work better, and he may be unsure about what will happen if a what will happen if a new policy is implemented. Decisionmaking must be qualitative, rather than quantitative, in this situation.

The inspirational strategy, or "science" of muddling through, is appropriate when the elements of rational decisionmaking are missing. This strategy is action-oriented. Rather than beginning with distinct goals, the decisionmaker selects goals and information which seem related to the problem. Means-end analysis is limited, given the lack of clear preferences.

THE NORMATIVE MODEL

These four strategies are oriented toward guiding the leader to the best possible solution. Another approach is prescriptive, rather than descriptive, and considers a wider range of alternatives. This normative model of decisionmaking was developed by Vroom and Yetton. This model prescribes the degree to which the leader should include group members in the decisionmaking process.

According to the model, some decisions are best made by the leader alone (autocratic). Some require information from others (consultative), and some are better left to the group alone (group). In the group decision, the leader does not try to persuade the group to adopt his solution. The leader is willing to to accept and implement any solution solution that the entire group supports. A final kind of decision is one left entirely to subordinates (delegated).

Under the normative model, the leader is concerned with the acceptability of the decision by others as well as its quality. The normative model requires a great deal of flexibility in the leader. It is difficult for some leaders to shift from the autocratic mode to the group mode, and vice versa.

CAL1219G/DEC84

L10-AS-20

SUMMARY

A number of factors influence the quality of a decision: the leader's own data acquisition capacity, the degree of participation by subordinates, the nature of unit goals, and the complexity of the environment. When unit goals are obvious or the ways of reaching those goals are limited, logical, individual decisionmaking is possible. When the objectives are highly confused and uncertain, the leader must expand the pool of information by relying on the participation and judgment of others. The aim is high-quality, acceptable decisions. There are a number of decisionmaking strategies the leaders can employ. The three basic steps in all sound decisionmaking are (1) identification of alternatives, (2) evaluation of alternatives, and (3) selection of an alternative.

CAL1219G/DEC84

L10-AS-21