Skip to content

9990 · 4.3.1

Group development and decision-making — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9990 Group development and decision-making. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

A hospital committee rushes to approve a new rota without consulting junior nurses. Members who had doubts stayed silent because the head nurse strongly favoured the plan and the team had worked together for years. Patient care errors rose after implementation. Analyse using Tuckman and Janis.

Show solution outline

Tuckman: The committee may have appeared at norming/performing (long history, cohesion) but skipped healthy storming — dissent was never aired, so norms suppressed debate.

Janis — groupthink: Cohesive in-group + directive leader + time pressure = classic antecedents. Symptoms: self-censorship (doubting nurses silent), illusion of unanimity, mindguards protecting the head nurse's view. Outcome: failure to appraise alternatives and incomplete survey of objectives (junior staff excluded).

Fixes: Devil's advocate role, anonymous feedback, subgroup analysis, leader withholds preference until others speak.

Evaluation: Groupthink explains silence but oversimplifies — power imbalance (LMX out-group juniors) also explains fear. Not all cohesive groups groupthink; psychological safety allows cohesion with open dissent.

Worked example 2

A project team of 5 members uses a Delphi process to select a new software vendor. In Round 1, the anonymous ratings for Vendor B were [6, 5, 8, 5, 6] out of 10. After seeing the average, the team re-rated in Round 2, giving scores of [7, 7, 8, 6, 7]. Calculate the final average score for Vendor B and the percentage change in its score from Round 1 to Round 2.

Show solution outline

Step 1: Calculate the average score for Vendor B in Round 1. Sum of scores = 6 + 5 + 8 + 5 + 6 = 30 Number of members = 5 Average score (Round 1) = 30 / 5 = 6.0

Step 2: Calculate the average score for Vendor B in Round 2. Sum of scores = 7 + 7 + 8 + 6 + 7 = 35 Number of members = 5 Average score (Round 2) = 35 / 5 = 7.0

Step 3: Calculate the percentage change in Vendor B's score. Change in score = New score - Old score = 7.0 - 6.0 = 1.0 Percentage change = (Change / Original) * 100 Percentage change = (1.0 / 6.0) * 100 = 16.67%

Final Answer & Interpretation: The final average score for Vendor B is 7.0. The score increased by 16.67% after the first round of feedback. This shows how the Delphi technique allows for convergence towards a more considered consensus, as members adjusted their initial, possibly outlier, ratings based on anonymous group feedback.