Technical decisions: why familiar information takes precedence
When a team weighs options on a precision-engineering problem, agreement among specialists does not guarantee that their distinct information has been examined. The management question is specific: how can a technical decision be prevented from resting mainly on what everyone already knew?
What the literature establishes
Garold Stasser and William Titus (1985, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) showed in a group decision-making experiment that discussion favours information initially known to everyone over information held by just one person. When the latter is needed to identify the best option, discussion may fail to correct initial preferences. Having information collectively therefore does not mean using it collectively.
The mutual validation of familiar information
Gwen M. Wittenbaum, Andrea P. Hubbell and Cynthia Zuckerman (1999, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) examined a mutual enhancement mechanism associated with shared information. Information that people already know lends itself to reciprocal validation and can support favourable assessments of one another’s competence. The ease of reaching agreement can thus reinforce the prominence of familiar facts without establishing their value for the decision.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that giving every function equal speaking time is sufficient. Yet an equitable distribution of speaking time guarantees neither that a uniquely held fact will be expressed nor that it will be considered in the decision. The aim is not to favour uncommon information systematically, but to check whether it changes the comparison between options. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
These studies rely on experimental situations in which the distribution of information is controlled. In a business, measurement reliability, changes in the process and responsibilities complicate the distinction between shared and unshared information. The studies therefore illuminate a risk without providing an estimate directly transferable to industrial decisions in Neuchâtel.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
Within SHR’s “Communication” programme, an exercise could focus on a decision involving design, production and quality in a Neuchâtel microtechnology, watchmaking or precision microelectronics business. Before the discussion, each function would record a relevant technical fact it believes it alone holds, together with its source; afterwards, the decision record would state whether each fact was examined and why it was accepted or set aside. The measure would be the proportion of these facts explicitly addressed in the record, calculated by dividing their number by the number of facts submitted. This indicator would check the traceability of the examination, not the correctness of the decision. To go further: explore the Communication training in Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Communication in Neuchâtel
- communication
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel