By Nilesh Bhagat, CHRP

When you go to the movies with friends, is there one of you who always chooses what you see?  Unless Roger Ebert is part of your crew, it’s unlikely to be a scenario many of us would find enjoyable.  Much like the collective decision-making exercised by top businesses, a great many of life (and work) decisions benefit from wider pools of input.

So why is it that many businesses are still unable to tap this wider font of input, especially when it has proven to be a valuable source of information gathering?

This is the question rolling about my head after reading a pair of interesting books: The Wisdom of Crowds by James Suroweicki, and Sway by Ori and Rom Brafman. Two things in particular resonated for me. Almost always, Suroweicki says, the collective judgment trumps individual judgment if there are certain elements present during the decision-making process (decentralized opinion, heterogeneous information sources and diverse contributors – all aggregated in some way).

Moreover, Ori and Rom say that our behavior – the ways in which we think, act and feel – can be irrationally swayed by social influence, including status and its associated power. I think that, given these philosophies, there’s a better way for organizations to make decisions in this new and exciting business era. 

I can say that most of my decisions involve the people who I feel will be affected in some way by the outcome – and even if they’re not directly affected, I’ve found it’s not such a bad idea to get some input from people in your network.  After all, we all have had the opportunity to experience so much in our own ways and have something to contribute to every discussion.

Traditionally businesses are structured into some sort of hierarchy, with a defined leader (or set of leaders) at the top and subordinates that trickle down. This is great because we obviously should have some element of control through structure when running a business. My concern has to do with the decisions which are influenced as a result of the way these businesses are structured. That is to say, the decisions that affect us all are swayed by the influence of certain groups or individuals rather than by the equal and unabated input of the collective.

So, how would a ‘new school’ format work?

Stakeholders from all depths of the organization are brought together in a forum where title and power have little or no influence – that is, each individual is treated as an equal; ideas are exchanged regarding what’s best for the organization from this diverse group; stakeholders are allowed to provide input from whichever information source they see relevant; opinions are gathered according to the specific experiences each contributor has, rather than from what the organization’s ‘power people’ have historically seen fit; and the resulting data is aggregated and crafted into a decision in a way where the collective is satisfied with the end-product. That is, the collective has had an opportunity to be involved and therefore own the result.

Tony Hseih, CEO of Zappos.com, Inc., agrees:  “Every interaction with anyone anywhere was an opportunity to gain additional perspective. We are all human at the core, and it can be easy to lose sight of that in a world by business, politics, and social status.” (Delivering Happiness, 2010, p. 81)

How are you tapping your teams?

Nilesh Bhagat, CHRP, is the membership and CHRP administrator at BC HRMA. After several grueling years in school, Nilesh graduated in October 2010 from Simon Fraser University with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration, First Class Honors. He majored in Human Resources Management and tacked on an extended minor in Psychology. He’s a self-confessed nerd (the first step is admitting), likes to read, loves hockey and is struggling with the complexities of learning the game of golf.