GROUP APPROACHES FOR IMPROVING STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY, DEVIL'S ADVOCACY, AND CONSENSUS.

Abstract

This laboratory study compared the effectiveness of the dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making by groups. Results showed that both dialectical inquiry and devil's advocacy led to higher quality recommendations and assumptions than consensus. Dialectical inquiry was also more effective than devil's advocacy with respect to the quality of assumptions brought to the surface. However, subjects in the consensus groups expressed more satisfaction and desire to continue to work with their groups and greater acceptance of their groups' decisions than did subjects in either of the two other types of group studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]