Yanghong is the group leader of part 2 of Assignment 1.The decisions that were supposed to be made revolved around whether the theme of narcissism and leadership and if they are essential when it comes to decision making (LuYuan, Y. C., & McLeod, 2012, p, 74). The other decision that was to be made entailed if there is a correlation between good decision making and narcissism. The decision making process would entail a brainstorming session whereby the group would review what other scholars have said about narcissism and leadership. Factors which influenced our decisions were based on studying other scholars have said regarding narcissism and leadership. The decisions that we arrived at as a group was that narcissism in organizational leadership is important and that there is a relationship between good decision making and narcissism (Buyl, Boone, & Wade, 2017). The last decision was that various leaders have varying degrees of narcissism based on their upbringing plus that narcissism correlates negatively to engagement in tasks, change-oriented and relational leadership behaviours.
As earlier stated, the group unanimously agreed that narcissism in organizational leadership is important and that there is a relationship between good decision making and narcissism. Our decision conforms to the concept of Quantity and Numerosity. This concept states that people depend on noticeable quantity of data/information before arriving at an individual judgment.
This was referred to as the quantity principle, since individuals appear to rely on the size or quantity of materials available before making their decisions. In our group discussions, our unanimous decisions were arrived at after studying several articles written by other authors about narcissism and leadership. Though there were divergent views regarding this topic, the one thing that these authors agreed upon was that narcissism and leadership is very essential/ important and that there is a relationship between good decision making and narcissism (Zajenkowski& Czarna, 2015). The group leader pointed out leaders have varying degrees of narcissism based on their upbringing plus that narcissism correlates negatively to engagement in tasks, change-oriented and relational leadership behaviours. This idea was supported by other group members.
Heuristic entails the usage of several units as the basis for making judgment. Our decisions were passed on studying articles and all of which had similar perception when it came to narcissism and leadership. As a result of this tangible evidence, the group members unanimously agreed with the findings of these authors.
The articles that influenced the decision of the group were: (1) CEO Narcissism, Risk-Taking, and Resilience: An Empirical Analysis in US Commercial Banks by Buyl, & Wade (2) The Leader Ship Is Sinking: A Temporal Investigation of Narcissistic Leadership by Ong, Arthur, & Akehurst and (3), What makes narcissists unhappy? Subjectively assessed intelligence moderates the relationship between narcissism and psychological well-being by Zajenkowski, & Czarna. The authors of the above articles carried out extensive research and analysis before arriving at their decisions. As a result, it was easier for the group members to trust these sources as been dependable and credible.
The other concept that informed our decision process was the aspect of unanimous decision. This aspect implies that the whole group members are in agreement that a particular aspect is true are fully support it. In our group, the group unanimously agreed that narcissism in organizational leadership is important and that there is a relationship between good decision making and narcissism. The last decision was that various leaders have varying degrees of narcissism based on their upbringing plus that narcissism correlates negatively to engagement in tasks, change-oriented and relational leadership behaviours.
The concept of unanimous decision is based on the fact that none of the group members is against or objects the findings of the study. The unanimous decision arrived at also is an indication that none of the group members was forced to agree with the decisions of the other members or that they slightly disagreed with the findings of the authors (Ong, Roberts, R., Arthur, Woodman, & Akehurst, 2016). The unanimous decision was a voluntary decision arrived at by the group members based on the fact that due diligence was done (research and analysis) by the authors hence they trust their findings.
The last decision making concept relates to brainstorming. Brainstorming entailed people analyzing certain findings from various angles before a conclusive and robust decision can be arrived at. Every member of the group had the opportunity to present their thoughts and opinion about that particular topic. Once this was completed, the group embarked on establishing which areas they agreed on and which areas required further discussion and deliberation so that a final decision can be arrived at. As a result, every member felt part of the decision making process plus the final outcome.
The merits of the decision we arrived was that it was based on research done by other experienced researchers, i.e. study and analysis was carried out before the decisions were arrived at. Besides this, the more the members within the group translates to that the group will have an increased ability to process the available information. Our group was made of four members hence making it possible for the group to evaluate the available information (Murphy, 2013).
The other merit of the decision was that the decision arrived were comprehensive. This was so since the group members were involved in a brainstorming session whereby various opinions were presented hence making it possible for the group to come up with a comprehensive conclusion (Ong, Roberts, R., Arthur, Woodman, & Akehurst, 2016). This merit conforms to the functionalist perspective which states that every aspect of a community is interdependent and contributes to the proper functioning of the community as a whole. Based on this fact, the final decision of the group was arrived at from the various contributions made by each group member.
The group unanimously agreed that narcissism and leadership essential when it comes to decision making based on studying three articles. The challenge with this is that it limited our decision/understanding of narcissism and leadership. The three articles were not very comprehensive when it came to discussing the aspect of narcissism and leadership. As a result, our decisions ended up generalizing the importance of narcissism and leadership when it comes to decision making.
There’re several weaknesses which are presented by including group of people in the decision-making process (Vroom, 2003). A case in point it that, decision making process usually consumes a lot of time before a decision is agreed upon. Such a situation may result to the group coming up with poor-quality decision in the event there isn’t sufficient time.
The other weakness is that various group members had varying personality and which influences their decision making process. This in turn affects the capacity of the whole group to come up with effective decisions. A case in point, certain group members exhibited impulsive traits and which resulted to arguments without considering the ideas of other group members. As a result, the final decision were not very comprehensive since the impulsive members wanted their ideas to the final one. The above weakness align to the conflict theory which states that social order is maintained by dominion and power. In the group decision making, those who had strong personality dominated the discussion and wanted their ideas to be the final one.
To avoid the aspect of generalization, the group could study other articles so that they get a comprehensive understanding of the narcissism and leadership hence reducing the issue of having a one-sided perspective of the whole topic. Through such actions, the group would be well be placed to makes decisions which are comprehensive.
Group members with strong personality need to allow other members to air out their ideas so that consensus can be arrived at without imposing ones ideas on others. This would ensures comprehensive decisions are arrived at. The aim of group discussions entail people “bringing their heads together” and share ideas (Tropman, 2016). There is no point of having group discussion if certain group members dismiss the opinions of other members and impose theirs on the group.
With regards to consumption of a lot of time and which leads to poor quality of the decision, strict timeline needs to be established. This would ensure fast and quick decision are reached at hence minimal time would be wasted. Establishing strict time line would ensure that the group members only focus on the topic alone and that the group members do not out of topic and start arguing as whose ideas should be final.
To minimize the issue of certain group members dominating and forcing their ideas on others, I would recommend the adoption of the Delphi Technique. The Delphi Technique entails gaining the opinions of experts and who might be known or unknown to all the group members (Tropman, 2016). This technique is effective since it insulates group members from dominating or influencing other group members. The Delphi Technique offers guidance in which direction the discussion should go. As a result, he/she levels the playing field of the group discussion.
Lastly, to make decisions more effective, majority rule would ensure that the decisions are sound. The fact that groups are made of people with varying personalities and which would affect the outcome of the discussions, majority rule should offer guidance when it comes to decision making. This would ensure that quick decisions that are comprehensive are arrived at.
Buyl, T., Boone, C., & Wade, J. B. (2017). CEO Narcissism, Risk-Taking, and Resilience: An Empirical Analysis in US Commercial Banks. Journal of Management, 0149206317699521.
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54- 75.
Murphy, A. (2013). The Power of Collective Wisdom and the Trap of Collective Folly. Leadership & Organization Development Journal..
Ong, C. W., Roberts, R., Arthur, C. A., Woodman, T., & Akehurst, S. (2016). The Leader Ship Is Sinking: A Temporal Investigation of Narcissistic Leadership. Journal Of Personality, 84(2), 237-247. doi:10.1111/jopy.12155
Tropman, J. E. (2016). Effective meetings: Improving group decision making. Los Angeles: SAGE
Zajenkowski, M., & Czarna, A. Z. (2015). What makes narcissists unhappy? Subjectively assessed intelligence moderates the relationship between narcissism and psychological well-being. Personality & Individual Differences, 7750-54. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.045