Page 98 - MarTol Css Cblm Basic

COMPUTER SYSTEM SERVICING NC II - CBLM

achieve consensus would be for them to track how decisions are made and ensure
that they are achieved by true consultation.

Decision By Lack of Response (The "Plop" Method)
The most common--and perhaps least visible--group decision-making method
is that in which someone suggests an idea and, before anyone else has said
anything about it, someone else suggests another idea, until the group eventually
finds one it will act on. This results in shooting down the original idea before it has
really been considered. All the ideas that are bypassed have, in a sense, been
rejected by the group. But because the "rejections" have been simply a common
decision not to support the idea, the proposers feel that their suggestions have
"plopped." The floors of most conference rooms are littered with "plops."

Decision by Authority Rule
Many groups start out with--or quickly set up--a power structure that makes it
clear that the chairman (or someone else in authority) will make the ultimate
decision. The group can generate ideas and hold free discussion, but at any time the
chairman may say that, having heard the discussion, he or she has decided upon a
given plan. Whether this method is effective depends a great deal upon whether the
chairman is a sufficiently good listener to have culled the right information on which
to make the decision. Furthermore, if the group must also implement the decision,
then the authority-rule method produces a bare minimum of involvement by the
group (basically, they will do it because they have to, not necessarily because they
want to). Hence it undermines the potential quality of implementation.

Decision by Minority Rule
One of the most-often-heard complaints of group members is that they feel
"railroaded" into some decision. Usually, this feeling results from one, two, or three
people employing tactics that produce action--and therefore must be considered
decisions--but which are taken without the consent of the majority.
A single person can "enforce" a decision, particularly if he or she is in some
kind of chairmanship role, by not giving opposition an opportunity to build up. For
example, the manager might consult a few members on even the most seemingly
insignificant step and may get either a negative or positive reaction. The others have
remained silent. If asked how they concluded there was agreement, chances are
they will say, "Silence means consent, doesn't it? Everyone has a chance to voice
opposition." If the group members are interviewed later, however, it sometimes is
discovered that an actual majority was against a given idea, but that each one
hesitated to speak up because she thought that all the other silent ones were for it.
They too were trapped by "silence means consent."

Finally, a common form of minority rule is for two or more members to come
to a quick and powerful agreement on a course of action, then challenge the group
with a quick, "Does anyone object?," and, if no one raises their voice within two
seconds, they proceed with "Let's go ahead then." Again the trap is the assumption
that silence means consent.

Date Developed:
SECTOR ELECTRONICS Document No.
May 04, 2020
RTC Issued by:
ZAMBOANGA QUALIFI- COMPUTER Developed By: Page 97 of
City CATION SYSTEM Mario Elmer B. Revision #___ 256
SERVICING NC II Tolo