Roloff, M.E. (2020). Macro perspectives of change [Word Document]. Retrieved from
Northwestern University MSC 513 class email.
The Paradox of Group Decision-Making poses that anything that increases the quality of decision making decreases the changes of implementing change. Three conflicts support this approach, the first is task conflict. This states the people in a particular group disagree about the best way to accomplish a task; this can ultimately evolve into the next conflict type. Emotional/relational conflict arises when individuals discuss diverse ideas in a combative environment; if someone attacks another person’s idea, this fuels a personal, emotional response. If the person attacking the idea wins, others, specifically those attacked, are against their idea and often the attacker in general; this can turn into a vendetta about how much an attacker is disliked. The final conflict is a process conflict when individuals become irritated because they do not like the process that is guiding decision making. It is usually perceived as either one-sided or ineffective and can ultimately turn into either a task or emotional/relational conflict. In order to address these conflicts three approaches can be attempted as solutions. Taking a dialectical approach can mean that an individual leading a team can highlight the issue at hand, break the team into two smaller, random groups and ask them to work independently from one another on a solution. These groups must be comprised of individuals who are not in alliance with one another in order to prevent defensiveness. Once that occurs, the groups then come together to determine which option is best. Another solution is to ask an individual to be a devil’s advocate by attacking an idea and not providing a solution, simply to raise potential concerns that may arise later on in the process. The final potential solution is requiring consensus, all participating individuals must agree on a solution.
This paradox encouraged me to analyze working groups that I have been assigned to participate in after a round of organizational change. Initially, I saw this as driven by participatory goals, and while that seems true, I also now understand it to be a strategy to help build a new office culture. This approach helps me to consider potential strategies to employ for future experiences of change.
LO1: articulate connections between the interdisciplinary field of communication and the central curriculum themes of the MSC program.
LO3: address complex challenges by collaboratively leading teams across disciplines, distance, and sectors.
Comments