Collective decisions: what the group may never hear
A collective decision can involve the right people without benefiting from what each person knows. The management question is specific: how can we check that information held by only one person is examined before the group makes its choice?
What the literature establishes
Garold Stasser and William Titus (1985, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) showed experimentally that group discussions favour information initially shared by several members over information held by just one. In their choice tasks, this selection could prevent the group from identifying the option supported by the full set of available information. Bringing together people with complementary information therefore does not guarantee that they will pool it.
Why familiar information dominates the discussion
Garold Stasser and William Titus (1987, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) studied how information load and the proportion of shared information affect the dissemination of unshared information. Their results show that these informational conditions change how such information circulates. The sampling mechanism matters: information known to several members has several opportunities to be introduced, unlike information that only one person can contribute.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that discussions should systematically be extended or that everyone should receive equal speaking time. These studies do not establish that either measure is sufficient to correct the problem. Balanced participation does not prove that distinctive information has been voiced, still less that it has influenced the choice. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these experiments cannot establish
These experiments use structured tasks in which researchers know how information is distributed and can identify the option supported by the complete information set. In an organisation, information may be uncertain, contradictory or difficult to verify, and the best option is not always identifiable. The experimental finding warrants attention to information flow, not a promise that exhaustive pooling will automatically produce a sound decision.
A practical check in Lausanne
In Lausanne, a medtech committee, a higher education leadership team, an international sports organisation or a scale-up in the Lake Geneva region can test the same protocol on upcoming collective decisions. Before any discussion, each participant separately records the factual information they consider relevant and permitted to be shared; afterwards, a designated person compares these records with the meeting minutes. The proposed measure is the proportion of items appearing in only one initial record that were actually examined during the discussion, distinguishing consideration from acceptance. Within SHR's « Prise de décision » programme, this check can serve as an exercise: it documents the circulation of distinctive information without claiming to measure decision quality on its own. To go further: explore the Decision-making training in Lausanne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Decision-making in Lausanne
- decision-making
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne