Group Decision-Making

Group decision-making is the process where a group of individuals deliberates on a subject of interest in an attempt to find the most stable outcome. This decision-making process can be more effective than individual decision-making, as the group can leverage a larger pool of experience, expertise, personalities, and more (Hogg, 2001). However, there are potential disadvantages to using a group to discuss a topic. For instance, a larger group of participants may slow down the decision-making process, which can be beneficial or detrimental depending on whether there are time constraints. Additionally, group processes are subject to various issues, including personal conflict, biases, narcissism, and other forms of conflict, which can discourage participants and alter the decision-making process. Group deliberation can be a powerful decision-making approach, but only when it is used as the “right tool for the right job” with proper alignment to context, participants, and desired outcomes. The following sections will discuss the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and the Consensus Development Conference (CDC) as two such methods of group decision-making.

Nominal Group Technique

The nominal group technique is a highly structured process used in organizational problem solving to generate and prioritize individual ideas. According to Dunham (2006), this method is less concerned with straightforward issues or negotiations and more focused on complex and ambiguous problems that require the collective input of experts to generate innovative and creative ideas. The NGT is a four-step process that provides a clear roadmap for problem-solving (Dunham, 2006).

1. Generate ideas.
2. Share ideas.
3. Discuss ideas.
4. Vote on the ideas.

The NGT, as a highly effective method for problem identification and resolution in organizational settings, promotes equal participation and minimizes the impact of status hierarchies. Participants first record ideas individually, then present them in a round-robin format, without immediate discussion. After all ideas are shared, they are further discussed for clarity and evaluation. Lastly, participants privately vote on ideas, with the priority ideas selected based on the highest to lowest ratings.

Consensus Development Conferences

A consensus development conference, also known as a consensus conference, is a public forum that combines expert testimony with structured group deliberation and discussion. The primary purpose of this conference is to enable participants to engage in informed discussions on important topics within a community-oriented setting (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005). The composition of the conference begins with the selection of neutral panelists and expert presenters, whom the committee chooses to address the controversial or emerging topic. After reviewing the evidence, the committee engages in a formalized discussion, followed by a consensus statement that reflects the group’s collective judgment. This product is referred to as a “position statement” (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005). These types of conferences are valuable tools in industries such as healthcare and policy, where transparency, honesty, and legitimacy are essential for practical deliberation.

Table 1

NGT vs. CDC

	Process	Purpose	Scope
Nominal Group Technique	Deliberate, four-step process	Address a complex organizational topic	Complex, single-use, organizational topic or issue
Consensus Development Conferences	Public discussion guided by panelists	Develop a position statement	Topics serving public interests (e.g., policy)

Compare and Contrast

The NGT and CDC are structured group decision-making methods designed to foster participation and informed outcomes, but differ significantly in process, purpose, and scope. NGT, generally speaking, is a four-step process used primarily in organizational settings to address complex and ambiguous problems through anonymized idea generation and prioritization (Dunham, 2006). It emphasizes equal participation, minimizes the influence of hierarchy, and follows a strict format for independent idea generation, structured sharing, group discussion, and private voting. In contrast, CDCs are formal public forums that bring together neutral panelists and expert presenters to deliberate on topics or issues, often in industries such as healthcare or policy contexts (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005). The goal of the CDC is to produce a position statement reflecting the panel’s collective judgment, with an emphasis on transparency, inclusiveness, and bridging the divides between experts and participants. While both methods aim for balanced participation and structured deliberation, NGT is more inward-facing and is ideal for problem-solving. In contrast, CDCs serve broader public interests by enabling informed community involvement on topics. In addition, CDCs also require extensive preparation and resources due to their public nature and formal structure. At the same time, NGT can be implemented with more manageable logistics, but it is best suited for single-purpose sessions. Ultimately, the choice between the two methods depends on the decision-making context, where NGT is used for internal creative solutions and CDC for public consensus on high-interest issues.

References

Department of Sustainability and Environment. (2005). The engagement toolkit. Retrieved June 30, 2025, from www.betterevaluation.org: https://www.betterevaluation.org/tools-resources/engagement-toolkit

Dunham, R. B. (2006, February 12). Nominal group technique: A users' guide. Retrieved June 30, 2025, from www.sswm.info: https://sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/DUNHAM%201998%20Nominal%20Group%20Technique%20-%20A%20Users'%20Guide.pdf

Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social psychology of group processes. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, 6417-6423. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01794-0