(a) Compare the process and effectiveness of : (i) Interacting (ii) Brainstorming (iii) Nominal (iv) Electronic meeting, as group…

(a) Group decision-making techniques compared

Interacting groups meet face to face and discuss freely, and decide by open interaction. They give rich exchange and commitment to the outcome, but conformity pressure, dominant members and groupthink reduce quality and independent thinking.

Brainstorming is meant to generate ideas, not evaluate them. Members offer as many ideas as possible, in a free-wheeling way, with no criticism, and build on others' ideas; a leader records them. It overcomes the pressure to conform and costs little, but it only produces ideas, and evaluation must follow separately; group production blocking and social loafing reduce output.

The nominal group technique restricts discussion during decision making. Members write ideas silently and independently, present them round-robin without discussion, discuss each for clarification, and then rank them silently and independently; the highest total rank wins. It keeps the group formally together while limiting interpersonal pressure, gives many ideas and good commitment, but is slower and fits only one problem at a time.

Electronic meetings link participants by computers, who type anonymous inputs displayed on a screen. Anonymity, honesty, speed and parallel entry make it good for large groups and sensitive issues, but it lacks the richness of face-to-face communication and rewards fast typists.

In effectiveness, the nominal and electronic methods usually give better quality and less conflict than interacting groups, brainstorming is best for idea quantity, and interacting groups build most cohesion.

(b) Nine power tactics and their effectiveness

Nine influence tactics are commonly identified. Legitimacy relies on authority or rules. Rational persuasion uses logic and facts. Inspirational appeals arouse emotion by values and vision. Consultation involves the target in planning. Exchange offers benefits in return. Personal appeals rely on friendship or loyalty. Ingratiation uses flattery or friendliness before the request. Pressure uses demands, threats or persistent reminders. Coalitions seek support of others.

Rational persuasion is generally the most effective, especially when the target is receptive, and inspirational appeals, consultation and ingratiation also work well, particularly upward. Pressure is least effective and often causes resistance. Legitimacy, exchange and coalitions work in some situations. Effectiveness depends on the direction of influence, the target's power and the sequence and combination of tactics.

(c) Manpower forecasting and supply sources

Considerations: the organisation's strategic and business plans, growth and technology change; the expected workload and productivity; attrition, retirement, transfers and absenteeism; the skill mix required; the budget; and the external labour market and economic conditions. Techniques include managerial judgement, trend analysis, workload analysis and the Delphi method.

Supply sources: internal supply from promotion, transfer, job posting, the skills inventory and replacement charts; and external supply from campus recruitment, employment exchanges, agencies, advertising, employee referrals and online portals. The firm compares the demand with the internal supply to find the shortfall to fill.