Advertisement

Team Decision-Making

  • Martin G. KocherEmail author
  • Matthias Praxmarer
  • Matthias Sutter
Living reference work entry
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the role of teams in organizations and their potential for increasing productivity and profitability. In economics, the decision-maker is usually modeled as an individual, but most organizational and managerial decisions are taken at a team level, e.g., by committees, boards of directors, and work teams. In the past two decades, behavioral and experimental economics made substantial progress in documenting and understanding basic differences in decisions taken by individuals and teams. The bulk of this literature, in the tradition of social psychology, is based on laboratory studies, where differences in decisions by individuals and teams can be studied in a tightly controlled environment. This chapter reviews the literature on decisions in the context of uncertainty and time preferences and social preferences including bargaining and cooperation, in complex environments that require learning and in moral dilemmas. In addition, this review discusses the important role of self-selection into teams and its potential consequences. Finally, the survey covers relevant field experiments that complement the literature on decision-making by looking at how team-based incentive schemes influence productivity and output.

References

  1. Abbink K, Brandts J, Herrmann B, Orzen H (2010) Intergroup conflict and intra-group punishment in an experimental contest game. Am Econ Rev 100(1):420–447.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ACFE (2018) Report to the nations – 2018 global study on occupational fraud and abuse. Technical report. https://www.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2018
  3. Auerswald H, Schmidt C, Thum M, Torsvik G (2018) Teams in public goods experiment with punishment. J Behav Exp Econ 72:28–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babcock P, Bedard K, Charness G, Hartman J, Royer H (2015) Letting down the team? Social effects of team incentives. J Eur Econ Assoc 13(5):841–870.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker RJ, Laury SK, Williams AW (2008) Comparing small-group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. South Econ J 75(2):367–382Google Scholar
  6. Bandiera O, Barankay I, Rasul I (2005) Social preferences and the response to incentives: evidence from personnel data. Q J Econ 120(3):917–962.  https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/120.3.917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bandiera O, Barankay I, Rasul I (2013) Team incentives: evidence from a firm level experiment. J Eur Econ Assoc 11(5):1079–1114.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ Behav 10(1):122–142.  https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bone J, Hey J, Suckling J (1999) Are groups more (or less) consistent than individuals? J Risk Uncertain 18(1):63–81.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007764411446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornstein G, Yaniv I (1998) Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: are groups more “rational” players? Exp Econ 1(1):101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009914001822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bornstein G, Kugler T, Ziegelmeyer A (2004) Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: are groups more “rational” players? J Exp Soc Psychol 40(5):599–605.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradfield AJ, Kagel JH (2015) Legislative bargaining with teams. Games Econ Behav 93:117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2015.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camerer CF (2003) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlsson F, He H, Martinsson P, Qin P, Sutter M (2012) Household decision making in rural China: using experiments to estimate the influences of spouses. J Econ Behav Organ 84(2):525–536.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casari M, Zhang J, Jackson C (2016) Same process, different outcomes: group performance in an acquiring a company experiment. Exp Econ 19(4):764–791.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9467-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cason TL, Mui VL (1997) A laboratory study of group polarization in the team dictator game. Econ J 107(444):1465–1483.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00058.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cason TL, Mui VL (2019) Individual versus group choices of repeated game strategies: a strategy method approach. Games Econ Behav 114:125–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2019.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Charness G, Rigotti L, Rusticchini A (2007) Individual behavior and group membership. Am Econ Rev 97(4):1340–1352.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.4.1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charness G, Sutter M (2012) Groups make better self-interested decisions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), 157–76.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.3.157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheung SL, Palan S (2012) Two heads are less bubbly than one: team decision-making in an experimental asset market. Exp Econ 15(3):373–397.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9304-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conrads J, Irlenbusch B, Rilke RM, Walkowitz G (2013) Lying and team incentives. J Econ Psychol 34:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper DJ, Kagel JH (2005) Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. Am Econ Rev 95(3):477–509.  https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper DJ, Saral KJ (2013) Entrepreneurship and team participation: an experimental study. Eur Econ Rev 59:126–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2013.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cooper DJ, Saral K, Villeval MC (2019) Why join a team? Working paper (version: 13 July 2019)Google Scholar
  25. Cox JC (2002) Trust, reciprocity, and other-regarding preferences: groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. In: Zwick R, Rapoport A (eds) Advances in experimental business research. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cox JC, Hayne SC (2006) Barking up the right tree: are small groups rational agents? Exp Econ 9:209–222.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9123-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dargnies MP (2012) Men too sometimes shy away from competition: the case of team competition. Manag Sci 58(11):1982–2000.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Deloitte (2016) 2016 Deloitte global human capital trends: the new organizational: different by design. Deloitte University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Denant-Boemont L, Diecidue E, l’Haridon O (2017) Patience and time consistency in collective decisions. Exp Econ 20:181–208.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-016-9481-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elbittar A, Gomberg A, Sour L (2011) Group decision-making and voting in ultimatum bargaining: an experimental study. The BE J Econ Anal Policy 11(1).  https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2631
  31. Engel C (2011) Dictator games: a meta study. Exp Econ 14(4):583–610.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Erev I, Bornstein G, Galili R (1993) Constructive intergroup competition as a solution to the free rider problem: a field experiment. J Exp Soc Psychol 29:463–478.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A (1993) Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Q J Econ 108:437–459.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2118338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Feri F, Irlenbusch B, Sutter M (2010) Efficiency gains from team-based coordination – large scale experimental evidence. Am Econ Rev 100(4):1892–1912.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.4.1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fischbacher U, Föllmi-Heusi F (2013) Lies in disguise – an experimental study on cheating. J Eur Econ Assoc 11(3):525–547.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Friebel G, Heinz M, Krueger M, Zubanov N (2017) Team incentives and performance: evidence from a retail chain. Am Econ Rev 107(8):2168–2203.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glätzle-Rützler D, Lergetporer P, Sutter M (2019) Collective intertemporal decisions and heterogeneity in teams. Working Paper. Working Papers in Economics and Statistics, No. 2019–10, University of Innsbruck (version: 11 June 2019)Google Scholar
  38. Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ 3(4):367–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA, Owan H (2003) Team incentives and worker heterogeneity: an analysis of the impact of teams on productivity and participation. J Polit Econ 111(3):465–497.  https://doi.org/10.1086/374182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström EE, Tranzona-Gómez M (2013) Preferences over social risk. Oxf Econ Pap 65(1):25–46.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gps021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 92(5):1644–1655.  https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ichniowski C, Shaw K, Prennushi G (1997) The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines. Am Econ Rev 87(3):291–313Google Scholar
  43. Kagel JH, McGee P (2016) Team versus individual play in finitely repeated prisoner dilemma games. Am Econ J Micro 8(2):253–276.  https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20140068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaptein M (2004) Business codes of multinational firms: what do they say? J Bus Ethics 50(1):13–31.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000021051.53460.daCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kerr NL, MacCoun RJ, Kramer GP (1996) Bias in judgment: comparing individuals and groups. Psychol Rev 103:687–719.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kittel B, Luhan WJ (2013) Decision making in networks: an experiment on structure effects in a group dictator game. Soc Choice Welf 40(1):141–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-011-0594-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kocher MG, Sutter M (2005) The decision maker matters: individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty-contest games. Econ J 115(500):200–223.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00966.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kocher MG, Sutter M (2007) Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments. Empirica 34:63–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-006-9026-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kocher MG, Strauß S, Sutter M (2006) Individual or team decision-making – causes and consequences of self-selection. Games Econ Behav 56(2):259–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kocher MG, Schudy S, Spantig L (2018) I lie? We lie! Why? Experimental evidence on a dishonesty shift in groups. Manag Sci 64(9):3971–4470.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kugler T, Bornstein G, Kocher MG, Sutter M (2007) Trust between individuals and groups: groups are less trusting than individuals but just as trustworthy. J Econ Psychol 28(6):646–657.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kugler T, Kausel, EE, Kocher MG (2012) Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(4), 471–482.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1184Google Scholar
  53. Kuhn P, Villeval MC (2015) Are women more attracted to co-operation than men? Econ J 125(582):115–140.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lazear EP, Shaw KL (2007) Personnel economics: the economist’s view of human resources. J Econ Perspect 21(4):91–114.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.4.91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luhan WJ, Kocher MG, Sutter M (2009) Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered. Exp Econ 12(1):26–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9188-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maciejovsky B, Sutter M, Budescu DV, Bernau P (2013) Teams make you smarter: how exposure to teams improves individual decisions in probability and reasoning tasks. Manag Sci 59(6):1255–1270.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Masclet D, Colombier N, Denant-Boemont L, Loheac Y (2009) Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. J Econ Behav Organ 70(3):470–484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Q J Econ 122(3):1067–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Osterman P (1995) How common is workplace transformation and who adapts it? ILR Rev 47:173–187.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399404700202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robert C, Carnevale PJ (1997) Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 72:256–279.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rockenbach B, Sadrieh A, Mathauschek B (2007) Teams take the better risk. J Econ Behav Organ 63(3):412–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schaner S (2015) Do opposites detract? Intrahousehold preference heterogeneity and inefficient strategic savings. Am Econ J Appl Econ 7(2):135–174.  https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20130271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shapiro J (2010) Discounting for you, me, and we: Time preference in groups and pairs. Working paper. Retrieved from http://economics.mit.edu/files/6059 (version: October 2010)
  64. Sheremeta RM, Zhang J (2010) Can groups solve the problem of over-bidding in contests? Soc Choice Welf 35:175–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-009-0434-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shupp RS, Williams AW (2007) Risk preferences differentials of small groups and individuals. Econ J 118(525).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02112.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Slembeck T, Tyran J-R (2004) Do institutions promote rationality?: an experimental study of the three-door anomaly. J Econ Behav Organ 54(3):337–350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2003.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Song F (2009) Intergroup trust and reciprocity in strategic interactions: effects of group decision-making mechanism. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108:164–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stoner JA (1961) A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BostonGoogle Scholar
  69. Sutter M (2005) Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size. Econ Lett 88(1):41–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2004.12.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sutter M (2009) Deception through telling the truth?! Experimental evidence from individuals and teams. Econ J 119(534):47–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02205.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sutter M, Kocher MG, Strauß S (2009) Individuals and teams in auctions. Oxf Econ Pap 61:380–394.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpn037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wildschut T, Insko CA (2007) Explanations of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: a review of the evidence. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 18(1):175–211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701676543CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin G. Kocher
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Matthias Praxmarer
    • 4
  • Matthias Sutter
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute for Advanced StudiesViennaAustria
  2. 2.University of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Max-Planck-Institute for Research on Collective GoodsBonnGermany
  5. 5.University of CologneCologneGermany
  6. 6.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Section editors and affiliations

  • Marie Claire Villeval
    • 1
  1. 1.GATECNRS – University of LyonEcullyFrance

Personalised recommendations