Content area
Full text
This study examines how managers make strategic decisions efficiently and simultaneously build the consensus often required to implement decisions successfully. The findings suggest that groups employed two critical processes-one substantive/cognitive and the other symbolic/political-to achieve high levels of efficiency and consensus. On the substantive dimension, they gradually structured complex problems by making a series of intermediate choices about particular elements of the decision. On the symbolic dimension, they took steps to preserve the legitimacy of the decision-making process.
Keywords: decision making; top management teams; conflict; consensus; legitimacy
Many scholars contend that successful organizational performance requires efficient decision making and effective implementation (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Janis, 1989; Murnighan & Mowen, 2002; Nutt, 1993; Shull, Delbecq, & Cummings, 1970). Efficient decision making means that the process unfolds smoothly and that managers select a course of action in a timely manner (Eisenhardt, 1989; Harrison, 1999; Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theoret, 1976; Trull, 1966). Effective implementation means that managers carry out the selected course of action and meet the objectives established during the decision process (Andrews, 1987; Dean & Sharfman, 1996). Scholars contend that managers must build consensus, defined as common understanding and commitment, to implement decisions successfully (Andrews, 1987; Bourgeois, 1980; Bower & Doz, 1979; Child, 1972; Drucker, 1954; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990). In sum, for firms to perform well, managers must make high-quality decisions in an efficient manner and simultaneously build consensus to facilitate implementation.
Although scholars contend that effective performance requires efficiency and consensus, much empirical evidence indicates that managers need to make trade-offs when leading decision processes. In fact, scholars often argue that efforts to build consensus decrease efficiency, whereas attempts to enhance efficiency inhibit the development of understanding and commitment (Amason, 1996; George, 1980; Hickson, Wilson, Cray, Mallory, & Butler, 1986; Janis, 1972; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Thus, the decision-making literature presents a puzzle. It suggests that successful firm performance requires an efficient decision process and effective implementation, but it does not explain how managers can achieve both outcomes simultaneously. Therefore, this hypothesis-generating study addresses the following question: How do managers make decisions in an efficient manner and build the consensus often required to implement those decisions successfully?
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Several prominent decision-making researchers (George, 1980; Janis, 1989)...