Team members' direct participation in decision-making processes and the quality of decisions.

• Author: Rutka, Ryszard

INTRODUCTION

Direct participation in decision-making (PDM) is a process of immediate personal involvement of an organization's members in decision-making (Cotton, 1988), and it is commonly believed among researchers that there are many advantages to and significant potential for PDM (Lorscheid & Meyer, 2021). Involving team members in decision-making is considered one of the most desirable options for improving the quality of management processes, especially in areas in which creativity and the uniqueness of products are a source of success. Rogelberg et al. (1992) noted that the search for solutions to organizational problems, the creation of new products, and the development of marketing strategies are frequently delegated to temporary teams under the assumption that the solutions they develop will be better than an individual's work.

It is generally believed that groups have the potential to make better decisions on complex problems than individuals because they can combine diverse information, perspectives, and skills (DeVilliers et al., 2016). Collective decision-making bodies are often used to mitigate individual psychological biases or mitigate problems of self-interested behavior (Hafner-Burton et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, groups do not always outperform individuals. A number of studies are conducted on problems in the group decision-making process leading to incorrect decisions (Takemura, 2021). For example, group think theory explains group interaction patterns that may result in bad decisions (Esser, 1998). Biased information seeking, conformity pressures and the desire to preserve harmony, group homogeneity, or other social and contextual influences can suppress effective group decision-making (Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002; Bazerman & Moore, 2012).

Do teams manage to reach better decisions on complex problems than those made by individuals? Previous research is inconclusive; Cooper and Kagel (2005) suggested that small teams engaged in implementing strategic tasks deliver results above initial expectations, but other studies have found no significant improvements or even a deterioration in the quality of decisions by teams compared with individuals (Kerr et al., 1996a; Sutter et al., 2009). Studies of authoritarian and collective decision-making processes in the area of technological innovation bring ambiguous results (Saenz-Royo & Lozano-Royo, 2023).

Besides individual and group decisions, there are other decision-making styles. For example, many team leaders make a significant proportion of their important decisions after consulting team members. Sometimes consultations are conducted with selected members, other times with the entire team. Meanwhile, most of the PDM research has focused on comparing one-person decision-making with group decision-making (e.g., Casari et al., 2012; Hodder, 2001; Saenz-Royo & Lozano-Royo, 2023), but the question of the influence of different forms of participation on the quality of decisions has been less frequently examined. (4) Although there are studies on consultative decisionmaking, they mostly concern determinants (Selart 2005; Hammoud 2011), procedures, and tools supporting managers (Chen & Tsai, 2015), rather than the effectiveness of this decision-making style.

In conclusion, we see a research gap consisting in the lack of knowledge on how the effectiveness of autocratic, consultative and group decision-making differs in the case of complex problems. The aim of the current study was to determine the effect on decision quality of changing the form of direct participation in the decision-making process in the case of complex and multistage problems. Such a description of the problem is met if: 1) solving the problem requires knowledge from various areas of the company's operation, which is rarely possessed by one person, 2) work on the search for a solution is multi-stage, and the solution to the problem consists of a series of decisions that are related to each other--in contrast to eureka-type problems. These are problems that require original ideas and the abandonment of routine solutions based on experience or procedures. We took a similar approach to Hamada et al. (2020) and Hodder (2001) who investigated the use of different decision-making styles in real-life situations involving complex information integration. Our study examined three decision-making styles: autocratic, consultative, and group.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Zieleniewski (1976) described a decision as a non-random choice of action, but the output of the decision-making process is the decision itself, rather than the action, being a conscious selection of one of the options recognized as acceptable. Business decisions in a hierarchical context can be made both by a manager alone and with the participation of employees; in the latter case, the manager shares the right to make the decision, delegating to employees a part of the decision-making process.

Dachler and Wilpert (1978) emphasized that employee participation is not a homogeneous phenomenon, but rather takes several distinct forms, which can be distinguished along several dimensions: 1) mode of participation, ranging from direct to indirect; 2) level of access to information and employee influence on the decision made; 3) degree of formalization, ranging from formal to informal. Direct participation involves immediate personal involvement of the employees, while indirect participation involves a form of employee representation. Level of access to information and employee influence takes the form of a continuum beginning with employees not being informed in advance about the decision, ending with decisions made by the employees. The degree of formalization ranges from formal participation regulations within an organization to informal participation as part of the superior-subordinate relationship, regardless of regulations.

In our study we analyze different decision-making styles, both formal and informal. They include (Vroom & Yetton, 1973):

* autocratic--the leader makes the decision by himself and consults subordinates only to obtain information when necessary;

* consultative-the leader shares the problem with subordinates to get their opinion and then he/she makes the decision by him/herself; and

* group--the leader shares the problem with subordinates in a group meeting and attempts to reach group consensus on solutions.

Previous research on the effects of PDM has taken place both at the whole-organization level and with individuals directly involved in the decisionmaking process. The first type of study considered the effect of participation on the financial results of enterprises (Alsughayir, 2016; Spreitzer & Mishra, 1999) and on work productivity (Cummings & Malloy, 1977; Nwosu et al., 2020; Nazari et al., 2022), while the second examined the influence of participation on employee involvement (Benjamin, 1982; Rathnayake, 2017), motivation (Alzaanin & Sulaiman, 2020; Irawanto, 2015), satisfaction (Black & Gregersen, 1997), absenteeism (Hammer et al., 1981) and on the quality of the decision (Casari et al., 2012).

It is the last of these-the quality of the decision -that would seem very crucial and one of the key determinants of the choice of the decision-making style. Researchers use many different measures to evaluate the quality of decisions and the decision-making process (Schafer & Crichlow, 2010). A full assessment of the quality of a decision is possible only after its effects materialize, i.e., it can be significantly postponed in time. The balance of effects, positive and negative, can be the basis for such an assessment. The point of reference in the assessment may be the goals of the decision maker at the time of making the decision. Sometimes the assessment takes a financial dimension-calculation of the net present value of the effects of the decision (Schilling, 2007). The assessment carried out immediately after the decision is made, when its full effects are not yet known, is of a different nature. The evaluator may use a forecast of the effects of the decision and the degree of achievement of the decision maker's goals. A different approach involves comparing the decision made with a best decision indicated by a panel of experts (Schilling, 2007). In this case, the quality of individual or group judgment is defined as the absolute value of the discrepancy between the judgment and the true value determined by experts (Einhorn et al., 1977). This approach was adopted in our research, as in other studies comparing decision-making methods (e.g., Hamada et al., 2020; Hodder, 2001).

Researchers point to a number of phenomena that may occur during the participation process and may affect the quality of decisions (Kerr et al., 1996b; Rutka, 2007; Tindale et al., 2003; Tore & Uysal, 2022; Tyler & Smith, 1998). Potential positive factors include:

* the option of analyzing the problem from multiple perspectives based on the competences of the team members;

* interactions within the team creating synergy; and

* overcoming over-specialized or subjective perceptions of the problem.

On the other hand, factors that can adversely affect decision quality include:

* the risk of the decision-making process being dominated by team members with an intellectual or formal advantage over others;

* the risk of more extreme decisions, either riskier or more cautious than individual decisions; and

* the risk of pressure to maintain group cohesion overcoming important objections and creating false support.

Much research has been done on the dynamics of group processes and the factors affecting decision quality (Hall & Watson, 1970). A separate stream of research is devoted to tools supporting the decision-making process, e.g., decision models (Feng et al., 2022), decision trees (Diao & Zhang, 2021), and IT tools (Hema & Kumar, 2022).

The effect of direct participation on the quality of decisions is most commonly examined...