Case study: The

Outstanding Faculty

THE OUTSTANDING Award.

FACULTY AWARD.
CASE STUDY: THE OUSTANDING
FACULTY AWARD.
QUESTION 1: WHAT PROBLEMS IN TEAM DECISION
MAKING LIKELY CAUSED THE COMMITTEE TO
SELECT FOR THE AWARD THE WORST APPLICANT ON
THEIR LIST?
There were a number of limitations that the group faced such as the time constraint. They did not
have enough time to organize a meeting and get to know each other and understand each other’s
perspective. If they have had met prior to this and had maintained a relationship with each other
then they wouldn’t have had problem understanding what each person’s definition of outstanding
was. Initially the committee members were unsure of the criteria that had to be used to finalize a
candidate to honor. Another problem was that the committee member’s views were distorted as
they feared that they’ll be judged for putting up their opinion. Conforming to the decision on the
fourth day to retain team cohesiveness was another issue. Even the two members who decided in
favor of Dr. H members after the meeting were not satisfied with what they decided previously
hinting that they were pressured into agreeing with the decision of the dean and a few others to
retain group harmony. Furthermore, not everyone’s voice was taken into account, the committee
moved on with the decision without further discussing it with the members who said ‘Nye’ and
disagreed with the decision made which further reassured the overconfidence of those who made
the decision. Also, favoritism towards a candidate was shown.

QUESTION 2: WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO

FUTURE COMMITTEES SO THEY AVOID THE
PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THIS CASE?
Our first recommendation would be that every individual team member should be confident with
their decision but not overconfident. A common ground of agreement should be reached in the
initial stages of making the decision, also any doubts should be cleared immediately. The more
the communication, the better for the committee. Communicate every relevant idea to have a
better grip on the issue. Justifications must be given by every member to support their decision.
Another suggestion would be to have constructive conflict where the main focus of the team
should be on the issue and retain respectful behavior towards everyone’s point of view. They
must be open to criticism and have an environment where all members feel safe to share their
opinion without being worried that they’ll be judged. Moreover, favoritism should not be
encouraged. Another recommendation to future committees would be that they must practice
brainstorming in order to have as many ideas as possible so that all aspects of the issue are
covered, not just one so as to have a better understanding of the issue. And finally, it is vital that
every member of the committee understands that an award will be a source of motivation and
inspiration to not only the person receiving it but to all individuals waiting to prove their talent.

QUESTION 3: DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE

USING CONCEPTS AND THEORIES ON INDIVIDUAL
DECISION MAKING?
Individual decision making greatly impacts the final decision. In this particular case study, it can
be observed that individual decision making went completely wrong. If we take into
consideration the rational decision making theory which was missing among the individual
committee members in this case, the individuals should have invested data and logic and not
subjectivity, intuition and emotions to finalize the candidate. One concept to be followed in
rational decision making is the understanding of evaluation criteria and placing the weightages
accordingly which was seen missing in this case. According to the perception theory individuals
behave according to what they believe the reality is and not the reality itself. Such a theory can
be seen being implemented in this case. Everyone had their own perceptions of the word
‘outstanding’ and they judged it according to that. Moreover, every individual’s input was vital
in this case, however some committee members simply complied with the decision made by
more dominant and controlling individuals in the group.