{"id":213,"date":"2018-10-26T09:00:07","date_gmt":"2018-10-26T09:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mgmtp13.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=213"},"modified":"2018-10-26T09:13:44","modified_gmt":"2018-10-26T09:13:44","slug":"group-decision-making","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/chapter\/group-decision-making\/","title":{"rendered":"Group Decision Making"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1.\u00a0 \u00a0Module 1: Group decision making<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n2.\u00a0 Learning outcome\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n3.\u00a0 Introduction\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n3.1\u00a0 Types of Decisions\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n3.2\u00a0 The decision making process\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Group Decision Making<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4.1\u00a0 Strengths of group decision-making<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4.2\u00a0 Weaknesses of group decision-making<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n5.Techniques of Group Decision Making<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n5.1 Factors to be kept in mind while selecting a particular technique<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n5.2 limitations of group decision making<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n6.Summary<\/span>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n2. LEARNING OUTCOMES<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n
    \r\n \t
  • After going through the lesson you should be able to :<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Understand the nature and steps of decision-making process<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Compare and contrast the types of decisions: programmed and non-programmed decision, strategic and tactical decisions<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Understand the advantages and disadvantages of group decision making Outline the limitations of group decision making<\/li>\r\n \t
  • identify the techniques of group decision making<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Find out how to make a right choice of the group decision making\u00a0 technique<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n \r\n\r\n3.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>INTRODUCTION<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    The word decision has been derived from the Latin word 'decider' which means a cutting away or a cutting off, or in a practical sense. Thus, a decision involves a cut of alternatives between those that are desirable and those that are not desirable. The decision is a kind of a desirable alternative Lopez has defined a decision as :<\/p>\r\n \r\n

    \"A decision represents a judgment; a final resolution of a conflict of needs, means and goals; and a commitment to action made in face of uncertainty, complexity and even irrationality.\"<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n3.1 TYPES OF DECISIONS<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Decision making is involved in every walk of life. It is relevant in organizational as well as non - organizational context. In organizational context decisions may vary from the major ones like determination of organizational objectives or deciding about major projects to specific decisions about day\u2013to\u2013day operations. Therefore, there are different types of decision which are made by managers in organizations and for each type of decision, decision making variables and conditions differ.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nProgrammed and Non\u2013Programmed Decisions<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Programmed Decisions: <\/strong>Programmed decisions are routine and repetitive and are made within the framework of organizational policies and rules. These policies and rules are established well in advance to solve, recurring problems in the organization for example the problem relating to promotion of employees is solved by promoting those employees who meet promotion criteria.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

    Non - programmed Decisions: <\/strong>Non-programmed decisions are relevant for solving unique\/unusual problems in which various alternatives cannot be decided in advance. (For such decisions, the situation is not well structured and the outcomes of various alternatives cannot be arranged in advices). For example, if an organization wants to take action for growth it may have several alternative routes like going for a grass - route project or taking over an exiting company. In each situation, the managers have to evaluate the likely outcomes of each alternative to arrive at a decision.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nStrategic and Tactical Decisions<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Strategic Decision: <\/strong>Strategic decision concept is based on strategy which is a major action plan in an<\/p>\r\n

    organization. Therefore, strategic decision can be defined as : Strategic decision is a major choice of\u00a0actions concerning <\/span><\/p>\r\n

    allocation of resources and contribution to the achievement of organizational objectives.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    Tactical Decision : <\/strong>Tactical or operational decision is derived out of strategic decision. It relates to day-to-day working of the <\/span><\/p>\r\n

    organization and is made in the context of well - set policies and procedures.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n3.2 THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nDecision making is a process to arrive at a decision.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nSteps in Decision-making Process<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    No human being is perfect. Any decision taken by an organisation cannot please everybody. The decision can also not be taken on the basis of emotion or bunch. In fact, it is to be passed on logic. Further one cannot take decision just by studying the literature on it, rather it requires practical experience. Moreover, the decision taken today cannot remain in force for ever. All this implies that the top-level and middle Ievel executives can take decision only if they engage in the following five steps : see figure 1.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    <\/div>\r\n
    \r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n

    Figure 1 : Steps In Group Decision Making<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n4. GROUP DECISION MAKING<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Managers like to believe that they are accomplished in such group activities like group decision making, goal setting and problem solving. However-their ability to implement such techniques is often hindered by their lack of understanding of the dynamics of group-decision making processes. As a result, these managers often end up perpetuating problems that they themselves create through their insensitivity to the needs of other group members. Hence, instead of achieving consensus, such managers take decision\/by the use of their authority. Sometimes, they lead the group towards decision making by minority rule or by majority rule. The better way to achieve consensus would be for them to track how decisions are made\u00a0and ensure that they are achieved by consultations with group members. The various methods of group decision making are given below:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    1.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Lack of Responses: <\/strong>The most common group decision-making method is the decision by lack of response. In this method, someone suggest an idea and before anyone else has said anything about it, without any deliberations it is rejected. In other words, all ideas that have been simply bypassed have in a sense been rejected by the group. The idea thus been rejected because the 'rejections' is a simply a common decision not to support the idea.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    2.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Authority Rule: <\/strong>Many groups have a power structure that makes it clear that the leader (chairman or someone in authority) will make the ultimate decision. In this case the group can generate ideas and hold free discussion, but the chairman or the leader may say that he has heard the discussion and has decided upon a given plan. The authority rule method produces a bare minimum of involvement by the group and unless the leader is very proficient he will not be able to take good decisions.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    3.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Minority Rule: <\/strong>A single person can enforce a decision, particularly if he is the chairman and does not give in to the opposition. 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 and implement it through the chairman or other powerful members of the group. Usually in the decision by minority rule, one, two or three people employ the tactics that produce action and therefore must be considered decisions but which are taken without the consent of the majority.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    4.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Majority Rule: <\/strong>Under this system, it is felt that if the majority of participants feels the same way, it is often assumed that, that decision is the best. On the surface, this method seems completely sound but often it turns out that decisions made by this method are not well implemented, even by the group that made the decision. This is so because of two kinds of psychological barriers:<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    The minority feels that there was an insufficient discussion or that their point of view were not properly understood and they may therefore feel misunderstood and sometimes resentful.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    The minority members feel that voting (done to understand majority preference) has resulted in\u00a0<\/span>two camps and that their camp has lost.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    As there are time constraints in coming to a group decision and because there is not perfect system, a decision by consensus is one of the most effective methods. This method is time consuming. Recognizing the several types of group decision-making is only part of the process. Managers must be specific in their approach to the one that is best in their own situation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4.1 Strengths of group decision-making<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nGroups generate more complete information and knowledge. They offer increased diversity of views.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThis opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be considered.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe evidence indicates that a group will almost always outperform even the best individual. Groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4.2 Weaknesses of group decision-making<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThey are time consuming.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThere is a conformity pressure in groups.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nGroup discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. Group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n5.\u00a0<\/strong>TECHNIQUES OF GROUP DECISION MAKING<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    In large and complex organizations most of the basic and strategic decisions are made by group of managers rather than individuals. It seems safe to say that in many instances group decision making is preferable than individual decision making.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n \r\n

    Decisions relating to the determination of organization goals, formulation of plans, strategies and policies fall under this category. Group decision making has become more prevalent during the past few decades. Organizational problems have become so complex which require a variety of specialized abilities that no individuals or one person can handle effectively.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nOver the decades, the social scientists have studied the ways in which group decision making may be made really effective.\r\n\r\nFollowing are some recent techniques for improving decision making .\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 BRAINSTORMING<\/strong>\r\n\r\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE (NGT)<\/strong>\r\n\r\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>DELPHI TECHNIQUE<\/strong>\r\n\r\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>DEVIL\u2019S ADVOCACY<\/strong>\r\n\r\n5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>DIALECTICAL INQUIRY<\/strong>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n1. BRAINSTORMING<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Brainstorming is a group decision making technique of generating as many ideas as possible , suspending evaluation until the final decision has been taken. Brainstorming is a group decision making process in which negative feedback on any suggested alternative by any group member is forbidden until all members have presented alternatives that they perceive as valuable. Brainstorming is carefully designed to encourage all group members to contribute as many viable decision alternatives as they can think of. Its premise is that if the evaluation of alternatives starts before all possible alternatives have been offered, valuable alternatives may be overlooked. During brainstorming, group members are encouraged to state their ideas, no matter how wild they may seem, while an appointed group member records all ideas for discussion.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    One company which has immensely benefitted from brainstorming is Toyota, which realized that it was not catering to the requirements of younger generation, they assembled a team of young employees who brainstormed to come out with new products like Toyota echo and scion ,an entirely new line of crossover vehicles aimed to suit the taste buds of the younger generation.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n2. NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE (NGT)<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Nominal Group Technique is a structured approach to group decision making focusing on generating ideas and choosing one. A manager who must take a decision about an important issue sometimes needs to know what alternatives are available and how people would react to them. It restricts verbal communication among the members during the decision making process. In this a problem is presented to them, and they write their reactions, ideas, suggestions, and send views on a sheet of paper without any discussion with other members. It is meant to resolve differences in group opinion by having individuals generate and the rank series of ideas. It follows the following discreet steps:<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nStep -1 Silent Generation of Ideas\r\n\r\nThe leads presents questions to the group\r\n\r\nIndividual\u00a0 responses in written format\r\n\r\nGroup work not allowed\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nStep \u2013 2 Recorded round-listing of ideas\r\n\r\nEach member presents an idea in turn\r\n\r\nAll ideas are listed on a flip chart\r\n\r\nNo discussion takes place until; all the ideas have been recorded.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nStep -3 Brief discussions of ideas on the chart\r\n\r\nClarifies the ideas \u00e0 common understanding of the problem Evaluates the points\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nStep \u2013 4 Preliminary vote on priorities\r\n\r\nEach member ranks 5 to 7 most important ideas from the flip chart and records them on separate cards.\r\n

    The leader counts the votes on the cards and writes them on the chart.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nStep -5 Discussion of the vote\r\n\r\nExamination of inconsistent voting patterns.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nStep \u2013 6 Listing of agreement on the priorities items.\r\n

    Final decision is determined by the idea with the highest aggregate ranking.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

    NGT is widely used in health, service, education and government organization. It helps in encouraging creativity, continued exploration of the issues.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n3. DELPHI TECHNIQUE<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThis technique was first developed by N.C. Dalkey and his associates in 1950 at the Rand Corporation\u2019s Think Tank. In this technique members do not meet face to face for group decision. All the decision are arrived through written communication. It is a systematic means to obtain consensus from a group or panel of experts.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nSteps :<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1.\u00a0 The problem is defined by the delphi leaders or experts.\r\n\r\n2.\u00a0 A sample of experts is selected.\r\n\r\n3.\u00a0 Questionnaires are developed and sent out to participants.\r\n\r\n4.\u00a0 \u00a0Responses are compiled and summarized into a questionnaire.\r\n\r\n5.\u00a0 Each member receives a copy of results.\r\n\r\n6.\u00a0 Participants are asked to reevaluate the responses.\r\n\r\n7.\u00a0 \u00a0The new responses are compiled and new questions may be prepared.\r\n\r\n8. Cycle stops only when consensus is reached.\r\n\r\n9.\u00a0 And ultimately a solution is developed.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThis technique helps to evoke each participant\u2019s unbiased opinion by preventing the influences of group dynamics.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4. DEVIL\u2019S ADVOCACY<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    It is a technique of group decision making in which group think is prevented , whereby an individual is appointed as devil\u2019s advocate to critically question the validity and feasibility of every decision. He is entrusted with the task of bringing up the potential problems that might arise after taking a particular decision. This saves the organizations from making costly mistakes by identifying the potential pitfalls well in advance. This individual keeps all the members on their toes and saves the organization from taking the wrong decisions.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n5. DIALECTICAL INQUIRY<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    This is a group decision making technique where a solid debate is encouraged and spearheaded between two opposing sets of recommendations. It is a very constructive approach in the sense that on one hand it leads to conflicting situations, on the other hand it brings forth the strengths and the weaknesses of both sets of ideas and thus helps in taking a well informed rational decision.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

    Brainstorming offers the advantage of encouraging the expression of as many useful ideas as possible, but the disadvantage of wasting the group's time on ideas that are wildly impractical. The nominal group technique, with its secret ballot, offers a structure in which individuals can support or reject an idea without fear of recrimination. Its disadvantage is that there is no way of knowing why individuals voted the way they did. The advantage of the Delphi Technique is that ideas can be gathered from group members who are too geographically separated or busy to meet face to face. Its disadvantage is that members are unable to ask questions of one another. Managers must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of these group decision making tools and adopt the one or some combination of all these that best suits their unique organizational requirements.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n5.1 Factors to be kept in mind while selecting a particular technique<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Brainstorming can be adopted when the objective is to generate as many ideas as possible NGT can be adopted when the group members are unwilling to contribute ideas<\/p>\r\n \r\n

    Delphi technique can be applied when there is a need for an expert opinion.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    When groupthink is to be avoided, devil\u2019s advocate or dialectical enquiry can be adopted<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    When decisions with regard to quality are to be taken, quality circles can be referred to.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    Research has shown that when the teams are made accountable for the decisions they tend to take well informed decisions.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    When the organization contemplates giving complete empowerment to its employees, the self managed teams can also be created.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n5.2 LIMITATIONS OF GROUP DECISION MAKING<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    There are two probable limitations of group decision making which can be either in the form of groupthink or group polarization\/ shift.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nGroupthink<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    We talked about group cohesiveness earlier as an outcome of effective teams, but at the same time it becomes a disadvantage when it comes to group decision making as it encourages group think which turns out to be dysfunctional rather than functional. This is because Groupthink leads to confirming to group pressures and there is sort of less tendency to apply one\u2019s mind over the ensuing problems and the group is sometimes attracted towards a more comfortable stance by going with the group opinion especially when the group exhibits streaks of high cohesiveness. We can say that group think is exhibited in the form of deterioration of mental efficiency and moral judgment on the part of the group members, resulting from group pressures. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nLet us review the actual conditions which air the emergence of group think which are ;<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe presence of\u00a0 highly cohesive and high ranking teams that tend to take decisions without outside\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nsupport are prone to group think.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nSecondly\u00a0 the\u00a0 lack\u00a0 of\u00a0 diversity\u00a0 amongst\u00a0 the\u00a0 group\u00a0 members\u00a0 in\u00a0 terms\u00a0 of\u00a0 gender,\u00a0 ethnicity,\u00a0 work\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nexperience and exposure etc also leads to group think where people think alike.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe other reasons could be the presence of limited resources and time constraints in which quick decisions are required, and also sometimes the decisions are consequential in nature and can be taken only when the whole group thinks alike.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nGroup polarization<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    Group polarization is exhibited by the tendency of the group members to produce shifts towards more extreme attitudes among members following group discussions.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nLet us review the actual conditions which air the emergence of group polarization, which are ;<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

    The first condition is the social comparison approach, here the individuals believe that their views are better than the rest of the group members, especially before rigorous group discussions have taken place. But after the discussion they realize that their views are not so far from average which forces them to take extreme positions\u00a0with regard to their viewpoint.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    The second condition is the presence of persuasive arguments approach, which says that after the group discussion the members becomes more confident of their viewpoints and thus they take extreme positions.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    Thus polarization divides the group into two extreme positions and can be detrimental to rational group decision making.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

    Both group think and group polarization are not good for group decision making. That is why it is recommended to adopt a particular technique depending upon the situation as discussed in detail above.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

      \r\n \t
    1. SUMMARY<\/strong><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n \r\n

      Group decision making is characterized by both strengths and weaknesses. Groups generate more complete information and knowledge, offer increased diversity of views, and increased acceptance of a solution. The down sides include increased time to make decisions, conformity pressures, domination by one or a few members, and ambiguous responsibility. Groupthink occurs when members rationalize any resistance and apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts. In addition, members who have doubts suppress their dissent and there is an illusion of unanimity. It is more likely to occur when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image. Group shift refers to a group decision making phenomena. Group decisions tend to exaggerate the initial position of the individual member and that shift is more often towards greater risk. Whether or not the group will shift toward greater risk tends to be a function of the members\u2019 pre-discussion inclinations. While the most common form of group decision making occurs in interacting groups, there are a number of other techniques. Group decision making techniques include brainstorming, nominal groups, and electronic meetings. They are an attempt to overcome pressures for conformity with face-to-face interacting groups. Brainstorming utilizes an idea-generating process that encourages any and all alternatives, while withholding any criticism of those alternatives. The nominal group technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication until all ideas have been presented. Ideas are silently and independently ranked. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision. A more recent type of group decision making technique is electronic decision making, where up to 50 people sit around a horseshoe shoe table and contribute via computer input.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

      Learn More:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n

        \r\n \t
      • Ashwathappa, Organization Behaviour. Tata McGraw Hill Khanka,S.S, Organizational Behaviour,S.Chand &Co.New Delhi.<\/li>\r\n \t
      • McShane,S.L.,Glinow, M A V.,Sharma,R ,R. Organizational Behaviour,\u00a0 Tata McGraw Hill<\/li>\r\n \t
      • A.G Jagpo and Victor H. Vroom, \"Hierarchical Level and leadership style\" Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance No. 18 (1977).<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Fred E. Fiedler, \"A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness\u201d. McGraw Hill, New York (1967).<\/li>\r\n \t
      • L.M. Prasad, Management Process and Organizational, Sultan Chand & Sons.<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Ahmed Abad (1972),\u201dManagement and Organizational Development\u201d, Rachna Prakashan, N.Delhi<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Arnold and Feidman, \u201cOrganization Behaviour\u201d, McGraw Hill\u00a0 International, New York.<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Apple White, Phillip B. (1965), Organizational Behavour\u201d, Printice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","rendered":"
        \n

         <\/p>\n

        1.\u00a0 \u00a0Module 1: Group decision making<\/strong><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        2.\u00a0 Learning outcome<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        3.\u00a0 Introduction<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        3.1\u00a0 Types of Decisions<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        3.2\u00a0 The decision making process<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Group Decision Making<\/span><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        4.1\u00a0 Strengths of group decision-making<\/span><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        4.2\u00a0 Weaknesses of group decision-making<\/span><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        5.Techniques of Group Decision Making<\/span><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        5.1 Factors to be kept in mind while selecting a particular technique<\/span><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        5.2 limitations of group decision making<\/span><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        6.Summary<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

         <\/p>\n

        2. LEARNING OUTCOMES<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \n
          \n
        • After going through the lesson you should be able to :<\/li>\n
        • Understand the nature and steps of decision-making process<\/li>\n
        • Compare and contrast the types of decisions: programmed and non-programmed decision, strategic and tactical decisions<\/li>\n
        • Understand the advantages and disadvantages of group decision making Outline the limitations of group decision making<\/li>\n
        • identify the techniques of group decision making<\/li>\n
        • Find out how to make a right choice of the group decision making\u00a0 technique<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

           <\/p>\n

          3.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The word decision has been derived from the Latin word ‘decider’ which means a cutting away or a cutting off, or in a practical sense. Thus, a decision involves a cut of alternatives between those that are desirable and those that are not desirable. The decision is a kind of a desirable alternative Lopez has defined a decision as :<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          “A decision represents a judgment; a final resolution of a conflict of needs, means and goals; and a commitment to action made in face of uncertainty, complexity and even irrationality.”<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          3.1 TYPES OF DECISIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Decision making is involved in every walk of life. It is relevant in organizational as well as non – organizational context. In organizational context decisions may vary from the major ones like determination of organizational objectives or deciding about major projects to specific decisions about day\u2013to\u2013day operations. Therefore, there are different types of decision which are made by managers in organizations and for each type of decision, decision making variables and conditions differ.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Programmed and Non\u2013Programmed Decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Programmed Decisions: <\/strong>Programmed decisions are routine and repetitive and are made within the framework of organizational policies and rules. These policies and rules are established well in advance to solve, recurring problems in the organization for example the problem relating to promotion of employees is solved by promoting those employees who meet promotion criteria.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Non – programmed Decisions: <\/strong>Non-programmed decisions are relevant for solving unique\/unusual problems in which various alternatives cannot be decided in advance. (For such decisions, the situation is not well structured and the outcomes of various alternatives cannot be arranged in advices). For example, if an organization wants to take action for growth it may have several alternative routes like going for a grass – route project or taking over an exiting company. In each situation, the managers have to evaluate the likely outcomes of each alternative to arrive at a decision.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Strategic and Tactical Decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Strategic Decision: <\/strong>Strategic decision concept is based on strategy which is a major action plan in an<\/p>\n

          organization. Therefore, strategic decision can be defined as : Strategic decision is a major choice of\u00a0actions concerning <\/span><\/p>\n

          allocation of resources and contribution to the achievement of organizational objectives.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Tactical Decision : <\/strong>Tactical or operational decision is derived out of strategic decision. It relates to day-to-day working of the <\/span><\/p>\n

          organization and is made in the context of well – set policies and procedures.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

           <\/p>\n

          3.2 THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Decision making is a process to arrive at a decision.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Steps in Decision-making Process<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          No human being is perfect. Any decision taken by an organisation cannot please everybody. The decision can also not be taken on the basis of emotion or bunch. In fact, it is to be passed on logic. Further one cannot take decision just by studying the literature on it, rather it requires practical experience. Moreover, the decision taken today cannot remain in force for ever. All this implies that the top-level and middle Ievel executives can take decision only if they engage in the following five steps : see figure 1.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          <\/div>\n
          \n

          \"\"<\/p>\n

          Figure 1 : Steps In Group Decision Making<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          4. GROUP DECISION MAKING<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Managers like to believe that they are accomplished in such group activities like group decision making, goal setting and problem solving. However-their ability to implement such techniques is often hindered by their lack of understanding of the dynamics of group-decision making processes. As a result, these managers often end up perpetuating problems that they themselves create through their insensitivity to the needs of other group members. Hence, instead of achieving consensus, such managers take decision\/by the use of their authority. Sometimes, they lead the group towards decision making by minority rule or by majority rule. The better way to achieve consensus would be for them to track how decisions are made\u00a0and ensure that they are achieved by consultations with group members. The various methods of group decision making are given below:<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          1.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Lack of Responses: <\/strong>The most common group decision-making method is the decision by lack of response. In this method, someone suggest an idea and before anyone else has said anything about it, without any deliberations it is rejected. In other words, all ideas that have been simply bypassed have in a sense been rejected by the group. The idea thus been rejected because the ‘rejections’ is a simply a common decision not to support the idea.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          2.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Authority Rule: <\/strong>Many groups have a power structure that makes it clear that the leader (chairman or someone in authority) will make the ultimate decision. In this case the group can generate ideas and hold free discussion, but the chairman or the leader may say that he has heard the discussion and has decided upon a given plan. The authority rule method produces a bare minimum of involvement by the group and unless the leader is very proficient he will not be able to take good decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          3.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Minority Rule: <\/strong>A single person can enforce a decision, particularly if he is the chairman and does not give in to the opposition. 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 and implement it through the chairman or other powerful members of the group. Usually in the decision by minority rule, one, two or three people employ the tactics that produce action and therefore must be considered decisions but which are taken without the consent of the majority.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          4.\u00a0 <\/strong>Decision by Majority Rule: <\/strong>Under this system, it is felt that if the majority of participants feels the same way, it is often assumed that, that decision is the best. On the surface, this method seems completely sound but often it turns out that decisions made by this method are not well implemented, even by the group that made the decision. This is so because of two kinds of psychological barriers:<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The minority feels that there was an insufficient discussion or that their point of view were not properly understood and they may therefore feel misunderstood and sometimes resentful.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The minority members feel that voting (done to understand majority preference) has resulted in\u00a0<\/span>two camps and that their camp has lost.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          As there are time constraints in coming to a group decision and because there is not perfect system, a decision by consensus is one of the most effective methods. This method is time consuming. Recognizing the several types of group decision-making is only part of the process. Managers must be specific in their approach to the one that is best in their own situation.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

           <\/p>\n

          4.1 Strengths of group decision-making<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. They offer increased diversity of views.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          This opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be considered.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The evidence indicates that a group will almost always outperform even the best individual. Groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          4.2 Weaknesses of group decision-making<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          They are time consuming.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          There is a conformity pressure in groups.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. Group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          5.\u00a0<\/strong>TECHNIQUES OF GROUP DECISION MAKING<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          In large and complex organizations most of the basic and strategic decisions are made by group of managers rather than individuals. It seems safe to say that in many instances group decision making is preferable than individual decision making.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

           <\/p>\n

          Decisions relating to the determination of organization goals, formulation of plans, strategies and policies fall under this category. Group decision making has become more prevalent during the past few decades. Organizational problems have become so complex which require a variety of specialized abilities that no individuals or one person can handle effectively.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Over the decades, the social scientists have studied the ways in which group decision making may be made really effective.<\/p>\n

          Following are some recent techniques for improving decision making .<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 BRAINSTORMING<\/strong><\/p>\n

          2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE (NGT)<\/strong><\/p>\n

          3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>DELPHI TECHNIQUE<\/strong><\/p>\n

          4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>DEVIL\u2019S ADVOCACY<\/strong><\/p>\n

          5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>DIALECTICAL INQUIRY<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

           <\/p>\n

          1. BRAINSTORMING<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Brainstorming is a group decision making technique of generating as many ideas as possible , suspending evaluation until the final decision has been taken. Brainstorming is a group decision making process in which negative feedback on any suggested alternative by any group member is forbidden until all members have presented alternatives that they perceive as valuable. Brainstorming is carefully designed to encourage all group members to contribute as many viable decision alternatives as they can think of. Its premise is that if the evaluation of alternatives starts before all possible alternatives have been offered, valuable alternatives may be overlooked. During brainstorming, group members are encouraged to state their ideas, no matter how wild they may seem, while an appointed group member records all ideas for discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          One company which has immensely benefitted from brainstorming is Toyota, which realized that it was not catering to the requirements of younger generation, they assembled a team of young employees who brainstormed to come out with new products like Toyota echo and scion ,an entirely new line of crossover vehicles aimed to suit the taste buds of the younger generation.<\/span><\/p>\n

          \n

           <\/p>\n

          2. NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE (NGT)<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Nominal Group Technique is a structured approach to group decision making focusing on generating ideas and choosing one. A manager who must take a decision about an important issue sometimes needs to know what alternatives are available and how people would react to them. It restricts verbal communication among the members during the decision making process. In this a problem is presented to them, and they write their reactions, ideas, suggestions, and send views on a sheet of paper without any discussion with other members. It is meant to resolve differences in group opinion by having individuals generate and the rank series of ideas. It follows the following discreet steps:<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Step -1 Silent Generation of Ideas<\/p>\n

          The leads presents questions to the group<\/p>\n

          Individual\u00a0 responses in written format<\/p>\n

          Group work not allowed<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Step \u2013 2 Recorded round-listing of ideas<\/p>\n

          Each member presents an idea in turn<\/p>\n

          All ideas are listed on a flip chart<\/p>\n

          No discussion takes place until; all the ideas have been recorded.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Step -3 Brief discussions of ideas on the chart<\/p>\n

          Clarifies the ideas \u00e0 common understanding of the problem Evaluates the points<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Step \u2013 4 Preliminary vote on priorities<\/p>\n

          Each member ranks 5 to 7 most important ideas from the flip chart and records them on separate cards.<\/p>\n

          The leader counts the votes on the cards and writes them on the chart.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Step -5 Discussion of the vote<\/p>\n

          Examination of inconsistent voting patterns.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Step \u2013 6 Listing of agreement on the priorities items.<\/p>\n

          Final decision is determined by the idea with the highest aggregate ranking.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          NGT is widely used in health, service, education and government organization. It helps in encouraging creativity, continued exploration of the issues.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          3. DELPHI TECHNIQUE<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          This technique was first developed by N.C. Dalkey and his associates in 1950 at the Rand Corporation\u2019s Think Tank. In this technique members do not meet face to face for group decision. All the decision are arrived through written communication. It is a systematic means to obtain consensus from a group or panel of experts.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

           <\/p>\n

          Steps :<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          1.\u00a0 The problem is defined by the delphi leaders or experts.<\/p>\n

          2.\u00a0 A sample of experts is selected.<\/p>\n

          3.\u00a0 Questionnaires are developed and sent out to participants.<\/p>\n

          4.\u00a0 \u00a0Responses are compiled and summarized into a questionnaire.<\/p>\n

          5.\u00a0 Each member receives a copy of results.<\/p>\n

          6.\u00a0 Participants are asked to reevaluate the responses.<\/p>\n

          7.\u00a0 \u00a0The new responses are compiled and new questions may be prepared.<\/p>\n

          8. Cycle stops only when consensus is reached.<\/p>\n

          9.\u00a0 And ultimately a solution is developed.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          This technique helps to evoke each participant\u2019s unbiased opinion by preventing the influences of group dynamics.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          4. DEVIL\u2019S ADVOCACY<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          It is a technique of group decision making in which group think is prevented , whereby an individual is appointed as devil\u2019s advocate to critically question the validity and feasibility of every decision. He is entrusted with the task of bringing up the potential problems that might arise after taking a particular decision. This saves the organizations from making costly mistakes by identifying the potential pitfalls well in advance. This individual keeps all the members on their toes and saves the organization from taking the wrong decisions.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          5. DIALECTICAL INQUIRY<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          This is a group decision making technique where a solid debate is encouraged and spearheaded between two opposing sets of recommendations. It is a very constructive approach in the sense that on one hand it leads to conflicting situations, on the other hand it brings forth the strengths and the weaknesses of both sets of ideas and thus helps in taking a well informed rational decision.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Brainstorming offers the advantage of encouraging the expression of as many useful ideas as possible, but the disadvantage of wasting the group’s time on ideas that are wildly impractical. The nominal group technique, with its secret ballot, offers a structure in which individuals can support or reject an idea without fear of recrimination. Its disadvantage is that there is no way of knowing why individuals voted the way they did. The advantage of the Delphi Technique is that ideas can be gathered from group members who are too geographically separated or busy to meet face to face. Its disadvantage is that members are unable to ask questions of one another. Managers must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of these group decision making tools and adopt the one or some combination of all these that best suits their unique organizational requirements.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          5.1 Factors to be kept in mind while selecting a particular technique<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Brainstorming can be adopted when the objective is to generate as many ideas as possible NGT can be adopted when the group members are unwilling to contribute ideas<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Delphi technique can be applied when there is a need for an expert opinion.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          When groupthink is to be avoided, devil\u2019s advocate or dialectical enquiry can be adopted<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          When decisions with regard to quality are to be taken, quality circles can be referred to.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Research has shown that when the teams are made accountable for the decisions they tend to take well informed decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          When the organization contemplates giving complete empowerment to its employees, the self managed teams can also be created.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

           <\/p>\n

          5.2 LIMITATIONS OF GROUP DECISION MAKING<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          There are two probable limitations of group decision making which can be either in the form of groupthink or group polarization\/ shift.<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Groupthink<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          We talked about group cohesiveness earlier as an outcome of effective teams, but at the same time it becomes a disadvantage when it comes to group decision making as it encourages group think which turns out to be dysfunctional rather than functional. This is because Groupthink leads to confirming to group pressures and there is sort of less tendency to apply one\u2019s mind over the ensuing problems and the group is sometimes attracted towards a more comfortable stance by going with the group opinion especially when the group exhibits streaks of high cohesiveness. We can say that group think is exhibited in the form of deterioration of mental efficiency and moral judgment on the part of the group members, resulting from group pressures. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Let us review the actual conditions which air the emergence of group think which are ;<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The presence of\u00a0 highly cohesive and high ranking teams that tend to take decisions without outside<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          support are prone to group think.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Secondly\u00a0 the\u00a0 lack\u00a0 of\u00a0 diversity\u00a0 amongst\u00a0 the\u00a0 group\u00a0 members\u00a0 in\u00a0 terms\u00a0 of\u00a0 gender,\u00a0 ethnicity,\u00a0 work<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          experience and exposure etc also leads to group think where people think alike.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The other reasons could be the presence of limited resources and time constraints in which quick decisions are required, and also sometimes the decisions are consequential in nature and can be taken only when the whole group thinks alike.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Group polarization<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Group polarization is exhibited by the tendency of the group members to produce shifts towards more extreme attitudes among members following group discussions.<\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Let us review the actual conditions which air the emergence of group polarization, which are ;<\/strong><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The first condition is the social comparison approach, here the individuals believe that their views are better than the rest of the group members, especially before rigorous group discussions have taken place. But after the discussion they realize that their views are not so far from average which forces them to take extreme positions\u00a0with regard to their viewpoint.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          The second condition is the presence of persuasive arguments approach, which says that after the group discussion the members becomes more confident of their viewpoints and thus they take extreme positions.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Thus polarization divides the group into two extreme positions and can be detrimental to rational group decision making.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n

          Both group think and group polarization are not good for group decision making. That is why it is recommended to adopt a particular technique depending upon the situation as discussed in detail above.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

            \n
          1. SUMMARY<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

             <\/p>\n

            Group decision making is characterized by both strengths and weaknesses. Groups generate more complete information and knowledge, offer increased diversity of views, and increased acceptance of a solution. The down sides include increased time to make decisions, conformity pressures, domination by one or a few members, and ambiguous responsibility. Groupthink occurs when members rationalize any resistance and apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts. In addition, members who have doubts suppress their dissent and there is an illusion of unanimity. It is more likely to occur when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image. Group shift refers to a group decision making phenomena. Group decisions tend to exaggerate the initial position of the individual member and that shift is more often towards greater risk. Whether or not the group will shift toward greater risk tends to be a function of the members\u2019 pre-discussion inclinations. While the most common form of group decision making occurs in interacting groups, there are a number of other techniques. Group decision making techniques include brainstorming, nominal groups, and electronic meetings. They are an attempt to overcome pressures for conformity with face-to-face interacting groups. Brainstorming utilizes an idea-generating process that encourages any and all alternatives, while withholding any criticism of those alternatives. The nominal group technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication until all ideas have been presented. Ideas are silently and independently ranked. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision. A more recent type of group decision making technique is electronic decision making, where up to 50 people sit around a horseshoe shoe table and contribute via computer input.<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

            Learn More:<\/strong><\/p>\n

              \n
            • Ashwathappa, Organization Behaviour. Tata McGraw Hill Khanka,S.S, Organizational Behaviour,S.Chand &Co.New Delhi.<\/li>\n
            • McShane,S.L.,Glinow, M A V.,Sharma,R ,R. Organizational Behaviour,\u00a0 Tata McGraw Hill<\/li>\n
            • A.G Jagpo and Victor H. Vroom, “Hierarchical Level and leadership style” Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance No. 18 (1977).<\/li>\n
            • Fred E. Fiedler, “A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness\u201d. McGraw Hill, New York (1967).<\/li>\n
            • L.M. Prasad, Management Process and Organizational, Sultan Chand & Sons.<\/li>\n
            • Ahmed Abad (1972),\u201dManagement and Organizational Development\u201d, Rachna Prakashan, N.Delhi<\/li>\n
            • Arnold and Feidman, \u201cOrganization Behaviour\u201d, McGraw Hill\u00a0 International, New York.<\/li>\n
            • Apple White, Phillip B. (1965), Organizational Behavour\u201d, Printice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":25,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["prof-geeta-bansal"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[60],"license":[],"class_list":["post-213","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-prof-geeta-bansal"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/213\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":218,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/213\/revisions\/218"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/213\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=213"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=213"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/mgmtp13\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}