Unanimity Rule and Organizational Decision Making: A Simulation Model

References

• Ackoff R. L.Creating the Corporate Future (1981) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Ackoff R. L.The Democratic Corporation (1994) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J.Social Choice and Individual Values (1963) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Google Scholar
• Bazerman M. H.Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (1994) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Bazerman M. H., Giuliano T., Appelman A. Escalation in individual and group decision making. Organ. Behavior Human Performance (1984) 33:141–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettenhausen K. L., Murnighan J. K. The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1991) 36:20–35Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bray R. M., Kerr N. L., Atkins R. S. Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex group performance and member reaction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1978) 36:1224–1240Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brennan H. G., Lomasky L. E.Democracy and Decision (1993) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buchanan J. M., Tullock G.The Calculus of Consent (1962) (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burawoy M.Manufacturing Consent (1979) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
• Carley K. Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3:20–46Link, Google Scholar
• Catalani M. S., Clerico G. F. How and when unanimity is a superior decision rule. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali (1995) 42:19–31Google Scholar
• Chichilnisky G., Heal G. M. Necessary and sufficient conditions for a resolution of the social choice paradox. J. Econom. Theory (1983) 31:68–87Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins D. The ethical superiority and inevitability of participatory management as an organizational system. Organ. Sci. (1997) 8:489–507Link, Google Scholar
• Courpasson D., Dany F. Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic hybrids. Organ. Stud. (2003) 24:1231–1260Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deetz S.Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization: Developments in Communication and the Politics of Everyday Life (1992) (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY) Google Scholar
• Dennis A. R. Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Res. (1996) 27:532–550Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dooley K., Baum J. A. C. Simulation research methods. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (2002) (Blackwell, Oxford, U.K) 829–848Google Scholar
• Dooley R. S., Fryxell G. E., Judge W. Q. Belaboring the not-so-obvious: Consensus, commitment, and strategy implementation speed and success. J. Management (2000) 26:1237–1257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Kahwajy J. L., Bourgeois L. J. Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. California Management Rev. (1997) 39(2):42–62Crossref, Google Scholar
• Endenburg G.Sociocracy as Social Design (1994) (Eburon Press, Delft, The Netherlands) Google Scholar
• Fiol C. M. Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organ. Sci. (1994) 5:403–420Link, Google Scholar
• Forsyth D. R.Group Dynamics (1999) (Brooks/Cole-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA) Google Scholar
• Gersick C. J. G. Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Acad. Management J. (1989) 32:274–309Crossref, Google Scholar
• Godwin W. F., Restle F. The road to agreement: Subgroup pressures in small group consensus processes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1974) 30:500–509Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grey C., Garsten C. Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organ. Stud. (2001) 22:229–250Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman J. R.Groups That Work (And Those That Don't) (1990) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) Google Scholar
• Hansmann H.The Ownership of Enterprise (1996) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Hwang H., Guynes J. The effect of group size on group performance in computer-supported decision making. Inform. Management (1994) 26:189–198Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janis I. L.Groupthink (1982) 2nd ed.(Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Janis I. L., Mann L.Decision Making (1977) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Jaques E. In praise of hierarchy. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1990) 68(1):127–133Google Scholar
• Jehn K. A., Mannix E. A. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44:238–251Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jehn K. A., Northcraft G. B., Neale M. A. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1999) 44:741–763Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T.Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research (1989) (Interaction Book, Edina, MN) Google Scholar
• Kostova D., Lafferty W. M., Rosenstein E. Workers' participation in Bulgaria: Past and current developments. International Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Volume III: The Challenge of New Technology and Macro-Political Change (1993) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K) 205–213Google Scholar
• Koza M. P., Thoenig J. C. Rethinking the firm: Organizational approaches. Organ. Stud. (2003) 24:1219–1229Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuperman R. D. The extent of dissent: The effect of group composition and size on Israeli decisions to confront low intensity conflict. Eur. J. Political Res. (2002) 41:493–511Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurrild-Klitgaard P. An empirical example of the Concordet paradox of voting in a large electorate. Public Choice (2001) 107:135–145Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lammers C. J., Széll G., Lammers C. J., Széll G. Concluding reflections—Organizational democracy: Taking stock. International Handbook of Participation in Organizations: Volume I (1989) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K) 315–330Google Scholar
• Lazega E.The Collegial Phenomenon: The Social Mechanisms of Cooperation Among Peers in a Corporate Law Partnership (2001) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Likert R.New Patterns of Management (1961) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• March J. G., Olsen J. P.Democratic Governance (1995) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• McCarthy S., Lammers C. J., Széll G. The dilemma of non-participation. International Handbook of Participation in Organizations: Volume I (1989) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K) 115–129Google Scholar
• McLagan P., Nel C. The shift to participation. Perspectives Bus. Global Change (1996) 10:47–59Google Scholar
• Meadows D. L., Behrens III W. W., Meadows D. H., Naill R. F., Randers J., Zahn E. K. O.Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World (1974) (Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Mennecke B. E. Using group support systems to discover hidden profiles: An examination of the influence of group size and meeting structures on information sharing and decision quality. Internat. J. Human-Comput. Stud. (1997) 47:387–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller J. G.Living Systems (1978) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Milliken F. J., Morrison E. W., Hewlin P. F. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. J. Management Stud. (2003) 40:1453–1476Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohammed S., Ringseis E. Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (2001) 85:310–335Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mosakowski E. Strategy making under causal ambiguity: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. (1997) 8:414–442Link, Google Scholar
• Nurmi H.Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal With Them (1999) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oliver P. G. Marwell, Teixeira R. A theory of critical mass: Interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action. Amer. J. Soc. (1985) 91:522–556Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olson M.The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (1965) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski W. J., Yates J. It's about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13:684–700Link, Google Scholar
• Parks C. D., Sanna L. J.Group Performance and Interaction (1984) (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) Google Scholar
• Perlow L. A., Okhuysen G. A., Repenning N. P. The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal context. Acad. Management J. (2002) 45:931–955Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poole M. Participation through representation: A review of constraints and conflicting pressures. International Yearbook of Organizational Democracy: Volume III (1986) (Wiley, Chichester, U.K) 235–256Google Scholar
• Putnam L. L., Phillips N., Chapman P. Metaphors of communication and organization. Handbook of Organization Studies (1996) (Sage, London, U.K) 375–408Google Scholar
• Randolph W. A., Sashkin M. Can organizational empowerment work in multinational settings? Acad. Management Executive (2002) 16:102–115Crossref, Google Scholar
• Repenning N. P. A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13:109–127Link, Google Scholar
• Richmond B.An Introduction to Systems Thinking (2001) (High Performance Systems, Hanover, NH) Google Scholar
• Robert C., Probst T. M., Martocchio J. J., Drasgow F., Lawler J. J. Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. J. Appl. Psych. (2000) 85:643–658Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romme A. G. L. A note on the hierarchy-team debate. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17:411–417Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romme A. G. L. Domination, self-determination and circular organizing. Organ. Stud. (1999) 20:801–832Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romme A. G. L. Making a difference: Organization as design. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14:558–573Link, Google Scholar
• Rudolph J. W., Repenning N. P. Disaster dynamics: Understanding the role of quantity in organizational collapse. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2002) 47:1–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling M. A., Steensma H. K. The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44:1149–1168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schweiger D. M., Sandberg W. R. The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision-making. Acad. Management J. (1989) 10:31–43Google Scholar
• Schweiger D. M., Sandberg W. R., Ragan J. W. Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus. Acad. Management J. (1986) 29:51–71Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen A. K.Collective Choice and Social Welfare (1979) (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Google Scholar
• Sen A. K. Rationality and social choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1995) 85:1–24Google Scholar
• Simmons A. J.On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society (1993) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Simon H. A.The New Science of Management Decision (1960) (Harper & Row, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon H. A., Pattee H. H. The organization of complex systems. Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems (1973) (George Braziller, New York) 1–27Google Scholar
• Simon H. A.The Sciences of the Artificial (1996) 3rd ed.(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Sinclair A. The tyranny of a team ideology. Organ. Stud. (1992) 13:611–626Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sobel R. S., Holcombe R. G. The unanimous voting rule is not the political equivalent to market exchange. Public Choice (2001) 106:233–242Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sterman J. D.Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World (2000) (McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Tjosvold D., Law K. S., Sun H. F. Collectivistic and individualistic values: Their effects on group dynamics and productivity in China. Group Decision Negotation (2003) 12:243–263Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Aken J. E. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for tested and grounded technological rules. J. Management Stud. (2004) 41:219–246Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Vlissingen R. F. A management system based on consent. Human Systems Management (1991) 10:149–154Google Scholar
• Virmani B. R. Training workers for participation in India. International Yearbook of Organizational Democracy: Volume III (1986) (Wiley, Chichester, U.K) 141–150Google Scholar
• Walsh J. P., Henderson C. M., Deighton J. Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1988) 42:194–216Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whitmeyer J. M. Power through appointment. Soc. Sci. Res. (2000) 29:535–555Crossref, Google Scholar