Group decision-making processes and group decision quality: moderation of mutual interest

Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2014 335

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Group decision-making processes and group decision quality: moderation of mutual interest

Aziz Bakay* Gediz University, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Mh., Kaynaklar Cd., No:115, B-227, İzmir, 35665, Turkey E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Jun Huang and Yundong Huang Texas A&M International University, 5201 University Boulevard, WHTC 221, Laredo, TX 78041, USA E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Considering the existence of mutual interest in work groups within organisational context, we investigated three main decision-making processes: Personal task participation, negative socio-emotional behaviour and information domination. To illustrate the relationship between group decision-making processes and decision quality, we developed and tested a process model in which the final group decision quality could be predicted by abovementioned decision-making processes. Testing the moderation effect of mutual interest is considered as focus of study and its implications are discussed. Further expansion of our model involves process satisfaction as an intervening variable. The overall assessment of the group decision-making process was captured in the process satisfaction construct and its association with decision quality was analysed. The findings suggested that our 1st model supported the moderation of mutual interest with one exception. The findings of the 2nd model suggested that satisfaction of the group members about decision processes is strongly associated with decision quality.

Keywords: group decision process; group decision quality; mutual interest; process satisfaction.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bakay, A., Huang, J. and Huang, Y. (2014) ‘Group decision-making processes and group decision quality: moderation of mutual interest’, Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.335–355.

Biographical notes: Aziz Bakay graduated from Department of Management at Bilkent University. He finished his masters in Finance at University of North Texas. In 2012, he completed the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in International Business Administration at Texas A&M International University. His dissertation investigated the impact of interpersonal trust on behavioural and workplace outcomes in organisations. Currently as an Assistant Professor, he is with the Department of Management at the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Gediz University.

336 A. Bakay et al.

Jun Huang is a PhD in International Business from Texas A&M International University. His concentration is in management.

Yundong Huang is currently a PhD candidate in International Business at Texas A&M International University. His concentration is in management.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Group decision making processes and group decision quality’ presented at the Allied Academics International Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4–6 April 2012.

1 Introduction

Group processes have been researched as vital components of decision-making mechanisms in organisational contexts. Making good decisions are essentials of work team upon which team effectiveness; hence organisational success and survival are contingent. Different decision processes prevail in the literature and their value and impact on group/individual outcomes were evaluated in the prior research. The literature involves variety of elements of group decision processes such as individual considerations prior to group discussion (Moon et al., 2003); decision schemes (Green and Taber, 1980); computer mediated communication, discussion time, group size, task type (Baltes et al., 2002); departmentalising decision process (Kameda, 1991), familiarity of group members, in-group conflict (Gruenfeld et al., 1996), voting tools in group decision support systems (Cheng and Deek, 2012). These studies expanding the group decision-making theory explained the decision processes with respect to variety of constructs.

A number of decision processes appear to offer potential insights in explaining group decision quality which has traditionally been underemphasised (Reuck et al., 2002). Concerning the quality of moral embracement of the group, epistemic quality of group decision could be enhanced through constitutive ‘quality assurance principles’ [Reuck et al., (2002), pp.149] that optimises group decision outcome. Papadakis and Lyriotaki (2013) developed an integrative model for strategic decision-making process where top management’s characteristics as a group property play a crucial role. As such, the propensity to take risk as a collective tendency was investigated in their study and found that top management’s competitive aggressiveness is positively associated with lateral communication within the organisation is realised. Besides, the strategic decision-making was argued to be shaped by the decision specific factors, external and internal contexts as well as effects of the decision on the careers of the decision makers. Similarly investigating the subjective perspective towards decision-making models; Chen et al. (2006) developed a linguistic approach towards decision-making. In their multi-person verbal model how aggregation of verbal recommendations of share experts was conducted in order to make an investment decision.

In this research, we argue that group decision processes directly relate to the group decision quality which essentially measures the product of a work team in an organisational context. We develop a process model incorporating a contextual factor moderating the influences of the decision processes on decision quality; that is mutual interest among group members. This idea was inspired by the work of House (1996) in which path-goal theory was revisited and House presented an expansion of leadership

Group decision-making processes and group decision quality 337

theory by examining the empirical research that validates the underlying theoretical ideas. Path-goal theory was reformulated and the contingency factors that are likely to affect some work unit behaviours were discussed. He proposed that when a mutual interest among work unit members exists as an extension of leadership, the group decision processes will substantially increase decision quality. In addition, when group members have expertise relevant to the technical or economic quality of decisions, inclusion of group members in the decision process who have relevant expertise will increase decision quality. Besides, appropriately balanced individual participation in decision-making process is argued to be associated with the decision quality. In this paper, we specifically investigate group decision quality as the outcome of the following three group processes: personal task participation, negative socio-emotional behaviour and information domination.

To illustrate the relationship between group decision processes and quality, we developed and tested a process model in which the final group decision quality could be predicted by decision-making processes (i.e., whether the decision is made in a participative process or one person in group possessed the majority of the information versus information is fairly distributed across group members). The moderation of mutual interest was tested and implications were discussed. Further expansion of our model involves an intervening variable; process satisfaction. The overall evaluation and assessment of the group decision-making process was captured in process satisfaction variable and its association with decision quality was furthered.

2 Literature review

2.1 Group decision-making processes

Group decision and the outcome of the decision processes can be argued to be contingent upon a number of factors. A research studied the familiarity of the group members prior to group decision-making (Gruenfeld et al., 1996) as an exploratory variable of group decision outcomes. The familiarity among group members can be traced to earlier training or work experience or any other interpersonal interaction all of which can reduce the ambiguity in a group task process as well as increasing the fluency and flexibility of group members’ thoughts. Despite these advantages, it is possible to observe group conformity and group-thinking in such groups. Similarly, not having a devil’s advocate in the group, team may have less chances of questioning the group decision and consequently it squanders the space for alternative ideas and new formulations. Therefore, sharing information could be also influenced by the fact that group members may be acquainted already. Gruenfeld et al. (1996) suggested that exposing prior experience with one another member of the group is likely to alleviate “the bias against sharing unique information” (p.3) than groups of people that are less familiar with each other. Considering the level of prior interaction, groups of strangers tend to have more conflicting viewpoints as opposed to less compositional diversity. Given such theoretical background, Gruenfeld et al.’s (1996) study investigated into group decision task about solving a murder mystery. The groups were formulated as follows: 1st group, three individuals all stranger to each other; 2nd group, two familiar and one stranger; 3rd group, three individuals all familiar to each other. In terms of information, prior to group

338 A. Bakay et al.

decision processes, it is either fully shared or each member is given a part of information that is not given to any other member. The study concluded that all stranger groups could solve the case when there is no unique information (every information is shared), the other two types of groups could solve the case when the clues remained unshared. This empirical research provides implications about group decision process and how the presence of unique information across group members matters in terms of participation and information sharing. The research also suggested necessary ground for us to highlight the importance of individual task participation during the group decision processes because the decision made at the end can be argued to be a function of the information exchange that could be realised only through stimulation of each group members to exert effort and provide input into the group discussion and deliberation. Such findings provide ideas about the situations where there is an information leader in the group that dominates the deliberation as well. However, presence of such a member and its influence on decision quality, to the best of our knowledge not corresponded by scholarly community.

The diversity in the group may be a source of disagreements and clashes between group members (Cheng and Deek, 2012). Green and Taber (1980) investigated into the group decision-making process in an experimental setting. Relevance of group process with respect to three group decision-making schemes; nominal vote, majority vote and consensus were explored. ANOVA results revealed the variation in decision-making processes across three different decision-making schemes. The results stated that personal task participation was lowest in the nominal and highest in the consensus. Nominal scheme has the least negative socio-emotional behaviour compared to the other two schemes that are indistinguishable in this aspect. Therefore, assuming that reaching to majority vote or a consensus is associated with longer group member interaction and higher number of possible disagreements, the group members’ experience of negative behaviour and dissatisfaction were higher than the nominal scheme however they did not differ among these two schemes. In terms of informal leadership, the results suggested that the majority and consensus schemes produced more informal leadership than the nominal vote scheme, implying more balanced participation opportunities in nominal groups. The informational centrality of an individual in a group was also studied by Sargis and Larson (2002). Their research tested to what extent participation is aided or depressed in cases of one individual in decision groups holds either shared or unshared information that is related to decision. Compared to equal participation level for all group members, if an individual possesses unique knowledge in the group facilitated the participation whereas if an individual possesses shared knowledge the participation deteriorated. It can be argued that the informal leadership in group processes is inversely related with participation however each having different implementations with respect to group decision quality. Despite the existence of shared or unshared information and behavioural processes are exacerbated in the literature, the direct impact of the existence of an informational leader as well as the level of negative socio-emotional behaviour on the group decision quality is not addressed. Informal leadership is employed in this study in relation to the nature of group decision-making that leverages the pool of information, potential solutions and the abilities (Cheng and Deek, 2012) due to consolidated cognitive skills of information sharing. Thus, in the current study, negative socio-emotional behaviour, personal participation and information domination are posed as crucial elements of group decision-making process model and as determinants of group decision quality.


2.2 Decision quality and mutual interest

In a study by Kamis and Davern (2005), it is asserted that the decision quality “is the extent to which the decision outcome is optimal, both in an objective and subjective sense” (2005, p.5). In order to address a more accurate measure of decision quality it is suggested that one should aim for having two approaches. Ozimec et al. (2010) were able to derive a more objective decision quality as the proportion of the revenue from the geographical location and the revenue of an acceptable region. When studying marketing decisions based on geographic information system, Ozimec et al. (2010) crafted a decision quality measure quantitatively. Emphasising both dimensions of a decision quality may not be always feasible. On the other hand, in different contexts researchers may have to utilise a subjective criterion to measure the group decision quality. Landsbergen and Coursey (1997) in their study kept relatively simple method of adopting the correctness in regards to the outcome/decision quality as a measure. Some other studies report decision quality in a subjective way due to the fact that in many cases producing an objective measure for the decision quality is very cumbersome. Amason (1996) highlighted a relatively easier method of assessing the decision quality through the perceptions of the decision makers themselves or those who could delve into the context and assess the processes and outcome. Therefore, it can be said that a remarkable decision quality assessment would be based on judgment and perception of group members. In our study, in line with above mentioned point of view, we are creating the group decision quality construct utilising the perceptions of the group members of the group decision quality.

Mutual interest is defined as one of the key element for teams in organisations. Sikes et al. (2010) defined a work team as “an organised group, committed to the individuals within the group, whose members share the same intent of accomplishing a common goal” (p.15). The variety in experiences and information in a team is argued to help team to comprehend problems better as well as to lay down alternative solutions for these problems. Throughout all group decision processes, we expect that the presence of mutual interest in the underlying task/duty would create the necessary motivation for the individual to stimulate their participation in the group deliberation and discussion. Similarly, we propose that the motivational effects of mutual interest in group decision processes with respect to other decision processes are significant. In our study, we develop a construct to measure the group members’ perception of mutual interest and thus its indirect influence on the decision quality.

2.3 Conceptual model

House (1996) has revisited path-goal leadership theory after 25 years of its inception. House was one of the earlier scholars to think about the guidance role of the leadership as clarifying the objectives of the subordinate and maintaining the satisfaction of the employees. The dyadic relationship was elaborated on extensively throughout his theory. Decision-making in a group context however; required a different type of participative leadership that is principally different than the dyadic participative leadership style. Therefore, the group oriented decision-making has its own dynamic properties such as decision-making process, mutual interest, decision satisfaction, decision acceptance and implementation. House (1996) following up the literature, proposes the following statement:

340 A. Bakay et al.

“When mutual interests among work unit members with respect to solving problems or making effective decisions exists or can be established, the group decision process will increase both decision quality and decision acceptance.” (p.342)

This proposition basically paves the ground of our research and therefore, our empirical work focuses on the moderation of the mutual interest on the relationship between decision-making processes and decision quality. Considering that the mutual interest could be developed in work teams or task forces as a managerial policy, it can be argued that the groups will deliberate more effectively. Group members’ interaction during the group discussion can be enhanced and efficient interdependence can be achieved bringing new evidence for the social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). Mutual interest factor is argued to influence the relationships between decision quality and aforementioned decision processes; task participation, information domination and negative socio-emotional behaviour. These three processes were argued to have explanatory power individually on the variance of group decision quality. Mutual interest is hypothesised to influence decision quality through the interaction terms.

3 Analytical models and hypotheses

One component of the group decision-making process is to what extent the group decision is made within a participative context. Therefore, the group member’s participation throughout the process is a determinant of the quality of the group decision through effective discussion and information sharing. The relationship between level of participation and outcome is hypothesised as follows:

H1 Personal task participation positively predicts the decision quality.

The experience of negative socio-emotional behaviour is arguably an important factor influencing the outcome of the group process. The relationship between the level of negative emotional disposition and the level of interaction in the decision scheme suggests that nominal vote scheme involves less negative socio-emotional behaviour compared to other decision schemes; consultative and majority vote (Green and Taber, 1980). The nominal vote scheme by nature implies less interaction among the group members as opposed to the consultative scheme. Therefore, we in our study utilised this construct and formulated the following hypothesis:

H2 Negative emotional-behaviour negatively predicts the decision quality.

Information sharing or not sharing in a group decision-making process can be crucial and it may be contingent upon the group members’ familiarity with one another (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). The existence of an emerging information leader in a group decision-making process can stimulate the quality of the group decision because the availability of the new information from one or two members in the group can be a manifestation of the exclusive expertise and knowledge regarding the underlying group decision. Franz and Larson (2002) noted that groups with experts experienced higher information-sharing in addition to the fact that experts discussed more information during group deliberation than other group members did. Thus, a betterment of the outcome measures can be expected by one individual in the group as an information leader through information sharing. Thus:


H3 Information domination positively predicts the decision quality.

The level of mutual goals and interests is a contextual factor that can enhance the impact of group decision-making processes on decision quality. The pursuit of individual goals where the group members are interdependent can impede the quality of the outcome and therefore be detrimental to the decision quality. Following this idea:

H4 Presence of high (low) mutual interest among group members strengthens (weakens) the relationship between three group decision-making processes and decision quality.

Figure 1 shows the graphical depiction of the initial model (model 1) and the hypothesised relationships among constructs are shown.

Figure 1 Initial conceptual model and hypothesised relationships

The overall assessment and evaluation of the group decision-making process is an aggregate measure of the three distinct decision-making processes. Capturing combined experience of three group processes, in other words the group atmosphere and satisfaction is argued to be an intervening variable in predicting the outcome variable. Therefore, we develop a second decision process model and include process satisfaction variable as an intervening construct. Yet, we maintain the core of the idea stated in the proposition; our research expands the model by examining a mediation variable of decision process assessment in addition to investigation of the moderating effect of the mutual interest (Figure 2).

H5 Decision-making process satisfaction mediates the relationships between three decision-making processes and decision quality.

H6 Decision-making process satisfaction positively predicts the decision quality.

342 A. Bakay et al.

Figure 2 Extended model and hypothesised relationship

4 Methodology

4.1 Variables and survey design

The variables of interests are latent variables in nature and those are constructed and measured through using multiple indicators. In order to tap on the underlying construct, a number of redundant indicator questions are created adopting from the literature. For personal task participation, five items; for negative socio-emotional behaviour, five items; and for information domination, four items are included in our survey (all of the indicators are available in Appendix C). These variables constitute three distinct group decision-making processes that are measured through these items. With respect to group decision quality, group decision-making process assessment and mutual interest; nine-item, eight-item and five-item measurement scales were utilised. All variables are formed by formative indicators and latent variables were constructed using the underlying factor analysis and algorithm in WarpPLS software. The reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the latent variables will be discussed in the results section.

The survey was designed in a multiphase process. First, the literature review of the relevant research was collected and the prior scales were reviewed. Second, the scales with good psychometric properties (i.e., reliability, validity) were adopted for use in our survey. The group decision process items (i.e. personal task participation, negative emotional behaviour, information domination) are adopted with minor changes from Green and Taber (1980), decision quality scale is a combination of the scales from the two studies; by Dooley and Fryxell (1999) and Janssen et al. (1999). Third, mutual interest scale is developed by the present authors. Questionnaire items are perception questions and statements. The respondents rated the items using the Likert scale (1 for


completely disagree, 5 for completely agree). Reliability scores of latent variables, loadings and cross-loadings of indicators are presented in the Appendices A and B.

4.2 Sample

In our study, we administered our survey to MBA students at a south Texas University (USA), both in-class and online. First, the faculty professors who teach MBA classes at the university were contacted concerning the purpose of the current study and the surveys. If MBA classes were taught online, we provided them the link of the survey so that professors can direct their MBA students to the online version of the survey. Besides, present authors pursued convenient sampling by sending the link of the online survey to the personal contacts that had at least some working experience, part-time or full-time, that would allow them to have group decision-making experience in a business context. Initial sample size was recorded as 128. The incomplete surveys and the mindlessly filled surveys (i.e., all ‘completely agree’ on a scale including reversed items) were eliminated. The number of useable surveys dropped to 115. The average full-time work experience of our sample was recorded as 6.6 years. The sample consisted of individuals from a variety of geographic regions including Asia, Europe and the USA.

4.3 Structural equation modelling

We utilised WarpPLS v2.0 software to factor analyse the survey data as well as for the estimation of the path coefficients in our model. It allows for reliability tests, convergent and discriminant validity throughout multiple indicators, loadings and cross-loadings, correlations among latent variables and average variance extracted (AVEs) (Kock, 2011). The thresholds of factor loadings, reliability measures are tested in comparison to prior literature. The PLS method does not assume any distribution (i.e., normal distribution) over the data, thus it allows data analysis with non-normal distribution creating a methodological advantage over other methods. Therefore, it generates the standardised values of all the variables and provides the standardised regression coefficients (beta) of the path analysis. We used bootstrapping technique for resampling which is recommended for size of sample higher than 100 as opposed to jack-knifing which useful for smaller samples (Kock, 2011) and effective in presence of outliers. Our data analysis generated better results with jack-knifing therefore results with only jack-knifing resampling method were presented.

4.4 Moderation and mediation tests

Moderation and mediation effect can be established in analytical models by following several steps that were explicated in the literature (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Judd and Kenny, 1981). First, the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is established. In our preliminary model, we see the significant impacts of three decision-making processes on the decision quality. Therefore, the link between independent variable and mediating variable is shown followed by the link between mediating variable and the dependent variable. For checking whether it is a full mediation, the direct link from the independent variable to dependent variable should disappear and become insignificant. If the both of the paths from independent variable to dependent variable stay significant, the existence of a partial mediator is shown.

344 A. Bakay et al.

4.5 Assessment of model reliability, convergent and discriminant validity

According to Hair et al. (1987), in order to check for the convergent validity of the constructs, the indicator-to-construct loadings for latent variables must above 0.5. This test examines whether items in the questionnaire are measuring the latent variables that they are designed to measure. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis in two models. In model 1, three indicators from the mutual interest whose loadings were lower than 0.5 were dropped from the construct. Remaining indicator loading are all higher than 0.5 suggesting acceptable convergent validity (see Appendix 1). The reliability test is to make sure that every respondent understands the questions associated to latent variables in the same way. This can be measured by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients. The reliability coefficients of latent variables that is larger than 0.7 are considered acceptable (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). In this research, all the coefficients for both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability are higher than 0.7 (Appendix 1 and 2). Table 1 Latent variable correlations and AVEs

Task participation

Negative behaviour

Information domination

Decision quality

Mutual interest

Task participation (0.778) 0.010 0.203 0.233 0.067 Negative behaviour 0.010 (0.699) **0.266 –0.095 **–0.189 Information domination

*0.203 **0.266 (0.774) 0.107 –0.085

Decision quality *0.233 –0.095 0.107 (0.762) ***0.633 Mutual interest 0.067 **–0.189 -0.085 ***0.633 (0.792)

Notes: Significance levels: *at the 0.1 level, **at the .05 level, ***at the .01 level, NS: not significant

Discriminant validity test is needed to check if indicators designed to measure one particular latent variable are not measuring any other latent variable. The AVE scores on the diagonal in Table 1 must be the largest number in its row and column (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). That is all AVEs should be larger than all of the correlations of that particular latent variable. Table 1 showing the AVEs and correlation coefficients among latent variables suggests that there is no problem of discriminant validity. We noticed that on Table 1, correlation between mutual interest and group decision quality appears to be high and significant. This indicates that collinearity may exist among these constructs. To address this issue, we conducted a variance inflation factor (VIF) analysis by using all constructs point to one dummy variable. The traditional threshold is that VIF scores should be less than ten (Hair et al., 2009). The result of this robustness test shows VIF scores of all the constructs are lower than two. Thus, we can state that there is no collinearity problem in our models.

In model 2, the loadings are all higher than 0.5 (see Appendix 2) suggesting acceptable convergent validity. All the coefficients for both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability are higher than 0.8. Therefore the measurement scales we have utilised in this study are reliable measurement tools. Finally, Table 2 provides the correlation coefficients among latent variables and AVEs, showing the discriminant validity of the latent variables. Though there are some significantly correlated items such


as negative behaviour and process satisfaction, the VIF test shows that values for all latent variables are less than 1.8 and therefore, no collinearity problem exists. Table 2 Summary of the results of the path analyses

Independent variables

Dependent variable Model 1

Model 2

Decision quality

Process satisfaction

Decision quality

Task participation 0.26 *** 0.20 ** 0.18 ** Negative behaviour –0.32 *** –0.44 *** –0.19 (NS) Information domination 0.21 *** –0.14 * 0.17 ** process satisfaction 0.31 *** Mutual interest * task participation 0.17 ** 0.21 * Mutual interest * negative behaviour 0.24 *** 0.12 ** Mutual interest * information domination 0.22 (NS) –0.25 (NS)

Number of observations 115 115 115 R-squared 0.35 0.24 0.42

Notes: Significance levels: *at the 0.1 level, ** at the .05 level, *** at the .01 level, NS: Not significant

5 Results

5.1 Estimations of path coefficients

The path coefficients of our model 1 and 2 are estimated using partial least squares based structural equation modelling using WarpPLS. The estimations for model 1 and model 2 are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. Our results reveal that personal task participation is positively related to group decision quality (β = 0.26, p < .01), which means a higher level of personal participation will increase the overall decision quality. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Negative behaviour is negatively related with group decision quality (β = –0.32, p < .01), supporting that if members experience higher negative behaviour in decision-making, the overall group decision quality will decrease. Information domination was found to be positively related to group decision quality (β = 0.21, p < .01) which means a higher level of information domination will increase the overall group decision quality. Thus, both Hypothesis 2 and 3 are supported. For model 1, all of the direct links are statistically significant at the level .01 level. With respect to the moderating effect of mutual interest, two of the interaction effects are estimated positive, task participation and negative behaviour. Therefore if members in a team have high level of mutual interest, it will strengthen the association between group task participation and group decision quality as well as negative behaviour and group decision quality. The moderating effect on the relationship between information domination and group decision quality is not significant (p = 0.13), while the other two interaction coefficients are highly significant. We can strongly argue that mutual interest is a moderator between different group decision-making processes and decision quality. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is partially supported (see Table 2 for the summary of results).

346 A. Bakay et al.

Figure 3 Estimated path coefficients for initial model

Notes: *Significant at the .1 level, **significant at the .05 level, ***significant at the .01 level, NS: not significant

Figure 4 Estimated path coefficients for the extended model

Notes: *Significant at the .1 level, **significant at the .05 level, ***significant at the .01 level, NS: not significant

As shown in Figure 4, personal task participation is positively and significantly related with group process satisfaction (β = 0.2, p < 0.05) suggesting that more participation will lead more satisfaction. Negative behaviour is negatively and statistically significantly related with group process satisfaction (β = –0.44, p < 0.01) indicating that extensive negative behaviour during the decision process will decrease satisfaction experienced by


the team. Information domination is also negatively and statistically significant related with group satisfaction (β = –0.14, p < 0.1) suggesting that having an information leader instead of distributed information across group members reduces the group process satisfaction. However, the reason behind of positive direct effect of information domination on group decision quality still needs to be investigated in the future studies. The path coefficient from personal task participation to group decision quality reduced from 0.26 to 0.18. From information domination to group decision quality estimated path coefficient dropped from 0.21 to 0.17 respectively after the involvement of process satisfaction as a mediating variable (see Table 2). This indicates that process satisfaction has partial mediating effect on these relationships. In addition, the coefficient become insignificant between negative behaviour and group decision quality indicating that process satisfaction exerts full mediating effect on this relationship. Mutual interest (the path coefficients on Figure 4 were not shown) keeps the same moderating effect as shown in model 1. Hence, Hypothesis 5 is supported by model 2 results. Finally, group decision process satisfaction is positively and statistically significantly related to group decision quality indicating that the group decision quality is enhanced if group members are more satisfied with the decision process, supporting our Hypothesis 6.

6 Discussion and conclusions

Model 1 provides empirical support for House’s proposition, that is when mutual interests among work unit members with respect to solving problems exists, the group decision process will increase decision quality. Specifically, our model tests three aspect of group decision process: Personal task participation, information domination and negative emotional behaviour. First two of these processes are positively related to group decision quality. Firstly, it reveals that the more participation in decision-making, the better group decision quality will be. As team members collaborate by participating personally, they tend to share more knowledge and skills provide more alternate choice and further lead to a better decision. Secondly, our results shows negative emotional behaviour is directly reducing the decision quality. Negative emotional behaviour construct involves the item, such as ‘I felt frustrated or tense about other’s behaviour’. This finding suggests that conflict in group environment in organisations shall be managed effectively in order to mitigate its negative impact on the overall group decision quality. Thirdly, when information is dominated by one or few members, the overall decision quality tends to be higher. In practice, high level of information domination usually reveals an informal leadership that most of the members incline towards one information source instead of acquiring information from everybody. One source dominating the available information may cause incomplete and/or misleading information, but can improve convergence and efficiency of information process, which in this study improves overall decision quality.

For moderating effect of mutual interest, this study reveals that when people share same goal and work for mutual interest, the relationship between participation and decision quality will be strengthened. When people have mutual interests, they pay more effort on the task in order to achieve their goals. Mutual interest also strengthens the negative link between negative behaviour and decision quality. It suggests that mutual interest engenders sensitiveness to uncooperative members and/or their behaviours. Hence, the impact of negative behaviour on group decision quality is further magnified

348 A. Bakay et al.

by mutual interest. The only insignificant link in model 1 is the moderation effect of mutual interest between information domination and decision quality. Mutual interest among group members neither strengthens nor weakens the relation between information domination and decision quality.

As far as the model 1 is concerned, the following figures are the graphical depiction of the relationship between group decision-making processes and decision quality in the presence of high and low mutual interest. The existing relationships between the variables are depicted for the two levels of mutual interest. As it can be seen on the graphs, the relationships between variables as they are shown as curves, could keep their shape (i.e., inversed U-curve, inverse J-curve) or the underlying nature of the relationship alters substantially. Therefore, the complexities in the relationships can be easily visualised. Thus, directions for further analysis could be drawn.

Figure 5 The relationship between task participation and decision quality in the presence of high/low mutual interest (see online version for colours)

The graph in Figure 5 shows the relationship between task participation and decision quality. In the presence of low mutual interest, rising task participation drives higher quality group decision outcomes. On the other hand, in the presence of high mutual interest, only very low and very high levels of task participation appears to enhance the group decision outcome. The relationship manifests an inversed J-curve as opposed to a U-curve in the presence of high mutual interest. J-curve implies that there is a positive non-linear association between variables. The U-curve suggests that high and low participation yield high decision quality. Linear estimation suggests that task participation predicts the decision quality positively (0.26, p < .01). The interaction variable in the model 1 is 0.17 (p < .05) and it implies the remarkable explained variance in the decision quality by the interaction variable. The graph on the right; however, presents some clues about the data distribution. The low task participation and high decision quality section tends to be driven by a number substantial outliers thus a limitation of our sample surfaces.


In graph of Figure 6, we observe J-curves for the relationship between decision quality and negative behavior across different levels of mutual interest. It is hard to distinguish any systematic differences from the graphs below however, the coefficient of 0.24 (p < .01) indicates that there is siginificant amount of variance explained by the interaction term in the path analysis. The linear estimation of the negative behavior is –0.32 (p < .01).

Figure 6 The relationship between negative behaviour and decision quality in the presence of high/low mutual interest (see online version for colours)

In model 2, group process satisfaction is added as a mediating factor into the analysis. The aim is to examine how group members perceived satisfaction about the three types of group decision process. Satisfaction on decision process is expected to impact the group decision quality. The satisfaction of decision processes perceived by group members can be increased by encouraging participation of the group members therefore leading to enhanced group decision process.

The satisfaction and morale are argued to be functions of participation because the individual can obtain chances for expression of thoughts and ideas that supports self-esteem. The communication of the ideas derives respect from peers and thus it helps build a stronger personality. In return, the individual is experiencing higher levels of satisfaction with the group decision processes. The satisfaction and participation link was also similarly shown in a meta-analysis by Miller and Monge (1986).

In this study, negative socio-emotional behaviour is found to be negatively associated with process satisfaction indicating that group members experience lower (higher) satisfaction in presence of high (low) conflict. Even though some studies distinguish task-oriented conflict from person-oriented conflict (Janssen et al., 1999) as well as their influence on the group outcome; our study did not specify a focus of negative emotional experience. We posited our construct to tap on more of interpersonal experience rather than underlying work duty. Our results still supported established association that person-oriented conflict generates unfavourable attitudinal group outcome that is process

350 A. Bakay et al.

dissatisfaction. Understanding that such subjectivities in decision-making processes have influences on the outcomes (Nikolopoulos, 2002), this research empirically sheds some light and helps explain the phenomenon of conflict and negative socio-emotional behaviours during group decision-making.

Our results suggested that information domination is partially mediated by the process satisfaction of group members. The association was shown by the significant path from information domination directly to group decision quality after introducing the intervening variable – process satisfaction. As a matter of fact, information domination is negatively related with process satisfaction. The justification for this relationship is that when information is dominated by one or few people rather than fairly distributed among all group members, the perception of dependence of group members upon a single person deteriorates the overall satisfaction of the decision process experience even though it may have a positive influence on the group outcome. It is interesting to note that the direct influence of information domination on group decision quality is positive. Therefore, by reducing the extent of information domination will increase group members’ satisfaction toward the decision process at the same time it will not necessarily increase the quality of the group decision.

Finally, process satisfaction is positively related with group decision quality suggesting the more satisfied group members perceived about decision process, the better decision quality will be. This study departed from the point of view that mutual interest is expected to moderate the decision-making processes and eventually impacting the decision quality. The empirical analysis supported the moderation of mutual interest factor in group dynamics. Through the mediator variable, process satisfaction; three types of group decision process eventually exert impact on decision quality. As practical implication, the managerial policies should involve the mutual interest among group members when a task force or a group decision is required. The managers can utilise incentives and personal development choices during the task forces and group work therefore the individuals can find time and space for their professional development as well. In addition, it would increase the level of mutual interest in the group, providing higher effectiveness of the group outcomes and the organisation as a whole.

References Amason, A.C. (1996) ‘Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on

strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp.123–148.

Baltes, B.B., Dickson, M.W., Sherman, M.P., Bauer, C.C. and LaGanke, J.S. (2002) ‘Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: a meta-analysis’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp.156–179.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp.1173–1182.

Chen, K-H., Chan, C-C. and Shiu, Y-M. (2006) ‘Performance measurement using linguistic terms in group decision-making’, Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.438–453.

Cheng, K. and Deek, F.P. (2012) ‘Voting tools in group decision support systems: theory and implementation’, Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.1–20.


Deutsch, M. (1949) ‘A theory of cooperation and competition’, Human Relations, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.129–152.

Deutsch, M. (1962) ‘Cooperation and trust: some theoretical notes’, in Jones, M.R. (Ed.): Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 10, pp.275–319, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Dooley, R.S. and Fryxell, G.E. (1999) ‘Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: the moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams’, Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 389-402.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.39–50.

Franz, T. M. and Larson, J.R. (2002) ‘The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion’, Small Group Research, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.383–411.

Green, S.G. and Taber, T.D. (1980) ‘The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.97–106.

Gruenfeld, D.H., Mannix, E.A., Williams, K.Y. and Neale, M.A. (1996) ‘Group composition and decision making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp.1–15.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (1987) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

House, R.J. (1996) ‘Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory’, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.323–352.

Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999) ‘How task and personal conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams’, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.117–141.

Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981) ‘Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations’, Evaluation Review, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.602–619.

Kameda, T. (1991) ‘Procedural influence in small-group decision making: deliberation style and assigned decision rule’, Journal of Personal Soc. Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp.245–256.

Kamis, A.A. and Davern, M.J. (2005) ‘An exploratory model of decision quality and its antecedents for category novices using multiple-stage shopping engines’, E-Service Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.3–27.

Kock, N. (2011) WarpPLS 2.0 User Manual, ScriptWarp Systems, Laredo. Landsbergen, D. and Coursey, D.H. (1997) ‘Decision quality, confidence and commitment with

expert systems: an experimental study’, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.131–157.

Miller, K.I. and Monge, P.R. (1986) ‘Participation, satisfaction and productivity: a meta-analytic review’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.727–753.

Moon, H., Conlon, D.E., Humphrey, S.E., Quigley, N., Devers, C.E. and Nowakowski, J.M. (2003) ‘Group decision process and incrementalism in organizational decision making’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 92, Nos. 1–2, pp.67–79.

Nikolopoulos, A.G. (2002) ‘Assessing subjective influences on managerial decisions’, Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 3, Nos. 3/4, pp.337–352.

Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York. Ozimec, A., Natter, M. and Reutterer, T. (2010) ‘Geographical information systems-based

marketing decisions: effects of alternative visualizations on decision quality’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, No. 6, pp.94–110.

352 A. Bakay et al.

Papadakis, V.M. and Lyriotaki, M-N. (2013) Career impact: the missing link influencing strategic decision-making processes?’, Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.121–145.

Reuck, J., Schmidenberg, O. and Klass, D. (2002) ‘General decision assurance principles and procedures for strategic planning’, Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.139–150.

Sargis, E.G. and Larson, J.R. (2002) ‘Informational centrality and member participation during group decision making’, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.333–347.

Sikes, B., Gulbro, R.D. and Shonesy, L. (2010) Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict (AOCCC), April 2010, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.15–19, 5p.

Appendix 1

Indicator-to-construct loadings and reliability of model 1

TaskPar NegEmBeh InfoDom DecQual MutuInt Alphaa CRb

TaskPar1 (0.864) 0.003 –0.001 0.093 –0.170 0.836 0.885 TaskPar2 (0.821) –0.078 0.125 –0.053 –0.045 TaskPar3 (0.763) –0.009 –0.151 –0.181 0.273 TaskPar4 (0.722) 0.130 –0.105 0.081 –0.125 TaskPar5 (0.717) –0.039 0.112 0.046 0.092 NegEmBeh1 0.103 (0.443) 0.037 0.070 –0.167 0.732 0.825 NegEmBeh2 –0.081 (0.672) 0.088 0.090 –0.049 NegEmBeh3 0.107 (0.730) 0.118 –0.062 –0.166 NegEmBeh4 0.031 (0.851) –0.317 –0.076 0.267 NegEmBeh5 –0.146 (0.765) 0.058 0.006 0.098 InfoDom1 –0.016 0.065 (0.826) –0.254 0.086 0.776 0.856 InfoDom2 –0.089 –0.030 (0.790) 0.186 –0.168 InfoDom3 0.078 0.011 (0.648) 0.183 0.060 InfoDom4 0.041 –0.042 (0.825) –0.114 0.041 DecQual1 0.097 –0.223 0.128 (0.826) –0.265 0.909 0.925 DecQual2 –0.102 –0.074 –0.011 (0.880) –0.247 DecQual3 0.036 –0.076 0.124 (0.917) –0.128 DecQual4 0.059 0.064 –0.147 (0.884) –0.263 DecQual5 0.017 0.095 –0.072 (0.702) 0.067 DecQual6 0.070 –0.041 0.062 (0.817) –0.108

Notes: aCronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient bComposite reliability coefficient


Indicator-to-construct loadings and reliability of model 1 (continued)

TaskPar NegEmBeh InfoDom DecQual MutuInt Alphaa CRb

DecQual7 –0.102 0.075 0.005 (0.626) 0.311 DecQual8 –0.055 0.116 0.002 (0.652) 0.255 DecQual9 –0.019 0.079 –0.127 (0.560) 0.353 MutuInt1 0.119 –0.034 0.038 –0.181 (0.919) 0.849 0.893 MutuInt2 0.204 –0.013 0.136 –0.299 (0.888) MutuInt3 –0.182 0.107 –0.218 0.099 (0.706) MutuInt4 –0.108 0.048 –0.147 0.140 (0.778) MutuInt5 –0.032 –0.098 0.185 0.224 (0.671)

Notes: aCronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient bComposite reliability coefficient

Appendix 2

Indicator-to-construct loadings and reliability coefficients of model 2

TasPar NegEmBeh InfoDom ProcSat DecQual MutInt Alphaa CRb TaskPar1 (0.829) –0.033 –0.003 –0.072 0.107 –0.144 0.836 0.885 TaskPar2 (0.800) –0.151 0.117 –0.186 –0.016 0.015 TaskPar3 (0.723) 0.053 –0.147 0.116 –0.205 0.23 TaskPar4 (0.747) 0.140 –0.102 0.046 0.072 –0.136 TaskPar5 (0.787) 0.008 0.117 0.115 0.024 0.055 NegEmBeh1 0.104 (0.542) 0.037 –0.022 0.073 –0.154 0.732 0.825 NegEmBeh2 –0.083 (0.666) 0.094 0.133 0.065 –0.094 NegEmBeh3 0.108 (0.814) 0.115 –0.043 –0.053 –0.151 NegEmBeh4 0.031 (0.687) –0.319 –0.041 –0.068 0.28 NegEmBeh5 –0.146 (0.758) 0.056 –0.017 0.009 0.101 InfoDom1 –0.015 0.035 (0.775) –0.064 –0.241 0.108 0.776 0.856 InfoDom2 –0.09 –0.011 (0.835) 0.091 0.169 –0.192 InfoDom3 0.078 0.038 (0.708) –0.002 0.181 0.054 InfoDom4 0.041 –0.059 (0.774) –0.032 –0.106 0.05 ProcSat1 –0.038 –0.059 0.006 (0.890) –0.003 0.029 0.907 0.935 ProcSat2 0.058 0.05 –0.04 (0.903) –0.061 0.028 ProcSat3 –0.018 0.092 0.025 (0.861) 0.017 –0.039 ProcSat4 –0.003 –0.081 0.011 (0.882) 0.049 –0.02 DecQual1 0.098 –0.218 0.13 0.046 (0.754) –0.272 0.909 0.925 DecQual2 –0.101 –0.104 –0.014 –0.067 (0.736) –0.223 DecQual3 0.036 –0.046 0.13 0.106 (0.869) –0.157

Notes: aCronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient b Composite reliability coefficient

354 A. Bakay et al.

Indicator-to-construct loadings and reliability coefficients of model 2 (continued)

TasPar NegEmBeh InfoDom ProcSat DecQual MutInt Alphaa CRb

DecQual4 0.062 –0.008 –0.155 –0.186 (0.692) –0.204 DecQual5 0.019 0.037 –0.079 –0.164 (0.704) 0.116 DecQual6 0.069 0.021 0.068 0.154 (0.766) –0.157 DecQual7 –0.103 0.094 0.007 0.039 (0.774) 0.296 DecQual8 –0.057 0.153 0.005 0.072 (0.784) 0.229 DecQual9 –0.02 0.068 –0.129 –0.049 (0.761) 0.364 MutInt1 0.119 –0.05 0.036 –0.045 –0.171 (0.834) 0.849 0.893 MutInt2 0.204 –0.016 0.135 –0.011 –0.298 (0.736) MutInt3 –0.181 0.068 –0.222 –0.098 0.118 (0.716) MutInt4 –0.109 0.07 –0.144 0.064 0.126 (0.852) MutInt5 –0.033 –0.067 0.188 0.075 0.21 (0.811)

Notes: aCronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient b Composite reliability coefficient

Appendix C

Indicators for each of the group decision-making processes

Personal task participation 1 I made suggestions about doing the task. 2 I gave information about the problem. 3 I asked others for their thoughts or opinions. 4 I showed attention and interest in the group’s activities. 5 I asked for suggestions from others in the group. Negative socio-emotional behaviour 1 I felt frustrated or tense about other’s behaviour. 2 I rejected other’s opinions or suggestions. 3 I expressed negative opinions about someone’s behaviour. 4 Your opinions or suggestions were rejected. 5 Others expressed a negative opinion about your behaviour. Decision scheme satisfaction/solution satisfaction 1 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your group’s solution? 2 To what extent does the final solution reflect your inputs? 3 To what extent do you feel committed to the group solution? 4 To what extent are you confident that the group solution is correct? 5 To what extent do you feel personality responsible for the correctness of the group solution?


Indicators for each of the group decision-making processes (continued)

How would you describe your group’s problem solving process? 1 efficient…………….……inefficient 2 coordinated………………uncoordinated 3 confusing…………………understandable 4 satisfying…………………dissatisfying Informal leadership (information domination) 1 Did you feel one person influenced the final solution more than the rest of the group? 2 Did anyone emerge as an information leader? 3 Did one or two members strongly influence the group decision? Decision quality 1 This decision was based on the best available information. 2 This decision was made based on valid assumptions. 3 This decision helps the group achieve its objectives. 4 This decision makes sense in light of the group’s current financial situation. 5 This decision is consistent with the department or organisation’s current strategy. 6 This decision contributes to the overall effectiveness of the group. 7 Group decisions were of much higher quality than the initial proposals of the individual

members. 8 Group decisions usually extended the quality of team member’s individual input. 9 Group decisions generally reflected the best that could be extracted from the team Mutual interest 1 Everyone in the team had the same goals. 2 If one person on the team benefited, then everyone benefited. 3 Team members had private agendas. 4 Everyone agreed on time/deadline importance. 5 Everyone agreed on output quality levels.

Group decision-making processes and group decision quality: moderation of mutual interest

Documents

Transcript of Group decision-making processes and group decision quality: moderation of mutual interest