IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v15y2004i6p704-718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unanimity Rule and Organizational Decision Making: A Simulation Model

Author

Listed:
  • A. Georges L. Romme

    (Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands)

Abstract

Unanimity rule is an important benchmark for evaluating outcomes of decisions in the social sciences. However, organizational researchers tend to ignore unanimous decision making, for example, because unanimity may be difficult to realize in large groups and may suffer from individual participants blocking decisions. This paper reconsiders unanimity rule in view of the development of circular systems for organizing decision making. It focuses on developing a theory of decision making under unanimity rule. The author uses a system dynamics model to explore the conditions under which unanimity rule supports the organization's ability to make decisions. Simulation experiments suggest that the dynamics and outcomes of unanimous decision making under and exceeding a critical threshold level of decision pressure are fundamentally different. Under this critical threshold, the decision-making system is capable of recovering from severe shocks to the system. If decision pressure is close to its threshold, a relatively small change can cause the decision process to collapse. In this respect, large groups operating under unanimity rule are less sustainable because they are more likely to exceed their critical threshold than small groups. Decomposing the decision-making system in small units, embedded in a hierarchical structure, therefore appears to be a necessary condition for sustainable performance in large organizations applying unanimity rule.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Georges L. Romme, 2004. "Unanimity Rule and Organizational Decision Making: A Simulation Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 704-718, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:15:y:2004:i:6:p:704-718
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0090
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1040.0090?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frances J. Milliken & Elizabeth W. Morrison & Patricia F. Hewlin, 2003. "An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1453-1476, September.
    2. Walsh, James P. & Henderson, Caroline M. & Deighton, John, 1988. "Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 194-216, October.
    3. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Heal, Geoffrey, 1983. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for a resolution of the social choice paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 68-87, October.
    4. Joan E. van Aken, 2004. "Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field‐Tested and Grounded Technological Rules," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 219-246, March.
    5. Denis Collins, 1997. "The Ethical Superiority and Inevitability of Participatory Management as an Organizational System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(5), pages 489-507, October.
    6. Dean Tjosvold & Kenneth S. Law & Haifa F. Sun, 2003. "Collectivistic and Individualistic Values: Their Effects on Group Dynamics and Productivity in China," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 243-263, May.
    7. C. Marlene Fiol, 1994. "Consensus, Diversity, and Learning in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 403-420, August.
    8. Mohammed, Susan & Ringseis, Erika, 2001. "Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 310-335, July.
    9. Nelson P. Repenning, 2002. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 109-127, April.
    10. Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2002. "It's About Time: Temporal Structuring in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(6), pages 684-700, December.
    11. Sobel, Russell S & Holcombe, Randall G, 2001. "The Unanimous Voting Rule Is Not the Political Equivalent to Market Exchange," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 106(3-4), pages 233-242, March.
    12. Elaine Mosakowski, 1997. "Strategy Making Under Causal Ambiguity: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 414-442, August.
    13. David M. Schweiger & William R. Sandberg, 1989. "The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision‐making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 31-43, January.
    14. Sen, Amartya, 1995. "Rationality and Social Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 1-24, March.
    15. Kathleen Carley, 1992. "Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 20-46, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laurent Bouton & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Frédéric Malherbe, 2014. "Get Rid of Unanimity: The Superiority of Majority Rule with Veto Power," NBER Working Papers 20417, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. A. Georges L. Romme & Gerard Endenburg, 2006. "Construction Principles and Design Rules in the Case of Circular Design," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 287-297, April.
    3. Bouton, Laurent & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Malherbe, Frédéric, 2017. "Unanimous rules in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 179-198.
    4. Margit Osterloh & Bruno Frey, 2006. "Shareholders Should Welcome Knowledge Workers as Directors," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 10(3), pages 325-345, September.
    5. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard & Urs Steiner Brandt, 2021. "The calculus of democratic deliberation," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 165-186, June.
    6. Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Danziger, Leif, 2016. "The unanimity rule and extremely asymmetric committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 107-112.
    7. Laurent Bouto & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Fédéric Malherbe, 2014. "Get Rid of Unanimity: The Superiority of Majority Rule with Veto Power," Working Papers 722, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    8. Sáenz-Royo, Carlos & Lozano-Rojo, Álvaro, 2023. "Authoritarianism versus participation in innovation decisions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    9. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Shareholders Should Welcome Employees as Directors," CREMA Working Paper Series 2005-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    10. Kirsten Martin & Bidhan Parmar, 2012. "Assumptions in Decision Making Scholarship: Implications for Business Ethics Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(3), pages 289-306, February.
    11. Steve Alpern & Bo Chen, 2020. "Optimizing Voting Order on Sequential Juries: A Median Voter Theorem and Beyond," Papers 2006.14045, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    12. Rumeng Cui & Zhong Ma & Longfeng Wang, 2022. "Allocation of Decision Rights and CSR Disclosure: Evidence from Listed Business Groups in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2013. "An Efficient Frontier in Organization Design: Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1083-1101, August.
    14. Vincent de Gooyert, 2019. "Developing dynamic organizational theories; three system dynamics based research strategies," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 653-666, March.
    15. Steve Alpern & Bo Chen, 2022. "Optimizing voting order on sequential juries: a median voter theorem and beyond," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(3), pages 527-565, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. A. Georges L. Romme & Gerard Endenburg, 2006. "Construction Principles and Design Rules in the Case of Circular Design," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 287-297, April.
    2. Hamilton, Rebecca W. & Puntoni, Stefano & Tavassoli, Nader T., 2010. "Categorization by groups and individuals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 70-81, May.
    3. Mohammed, Susan & Ringseis, Erika, 2001. "Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 310-335, July.
    4. Bill McKelvey, 1999. "Avoiding Complexity Catastrophe in Coevolutionary Pockets: Strategies for Rugged Landscapes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 294-321, June.
    5. Florence Allard-Poesi, 1998. "Representations And Influence Processes In Groups: Towards A Socio-Cognitive Perspective On Cognition In Organization," Post-Print hal-01490579, HAL.
    6. Kimberly D. Elsbach & Pamela S. Barr & Andrew B. Hargadon, 2005. "Identifying Situated Cognition in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 422-433, August.
    7. Kirsten Martin & Bidhan Parmar, 2012. "Assumptions in Decision Making Scholarship: Implications for Business Ethics Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(3), pages 289-306, February.
    8. Ooi, Chai-Aun & Hooy, Chee-Wooi & Mat Som, Ahmad Puad, 2015. "Diversity in human and social capital: Empirical evidence from Asian tourism firms in corporate board composition," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 139-153.
    9. Edward G. Anderson & Kyle Lewis, 2014. "A Dynamic Model of Individual and Collective Learning Amid Disruption," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 356-376, April.
    10. Neill, Stern & Rose, Gregory M., 2007. "Achieving adaptive ends through equivocality: A study of organizational antecedents and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 305-313, April.
    11. Wincent, Joakim & Anokhin, Sergey & Örtqvist, Daniel, 2010. "Does network board capital matter? A study of innovative performance in strategic SME networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 265-275, March.
    12. Michael J. Ashworth & Kathleen M. Carley, 2007. "Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 89-111, March.
    13. O'Brien, Frances A. & Meadows, Maureen & Griffiths, Sam, 2017. "Serialisation and the use of Twitter: Keeping the conversation alive in public policy scenario projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 26-40.
    14. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    15. James R. Detert & Linda K. Treviño, 2010. "Speaking Up to Higher-Ups: How Supervisors and Skip-Level Leaders Influence Employee Voice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 249-270, February.
    16. Foss Kirsten & Foss Nicolai & Klein Peter G. & Klein Sandra K., 2002. "Heterogeneous Capital, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Organization," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, March.
    17. Florian M. Artinger & Sabrina Artinger & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2019. "C. Y. A.: frequency and causes of defensive decisions in public administration," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 9-25, April.
    18. Christopher S. Tuggle & David G. Sirmon & Cameron J. Borgholthaus & Leonard Bierman & A. Erin Bass, 2022. "From Seats at the Table to Voices in the Discussion: Antecedents of Underrepresented Director Participation in Board Meetings," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1253-1283, July.
    19. Wu-Hsiung Huang, 2014. "Singularity and Arrow’s paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(3), pages 671-706, March.
    20. Olson, Bradley J. & Bao, Yongjian & Parayitam, Satyanarayana, 2007. "Strategic decision making within Chinese firms: The effects of cognitive diversity and trust on decision outcomes," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-46, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:15:y:2004:i:6:p:704-718. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.