The nominal group technique proved to be a valuable tool for synthesizing ideas
and for drawing out a number of different view points about what sustainable
development practices should be integrated into current human resource management
curriculum. Group consensus was achieved without creating conflicts or hindering
individual thinking among team members. Differences in cultures and disciplines did not
cause conflicts because the preference of each individual in the group was reflected in the
final product since consensus was reached by mutual interaction. This process is yet
another demonstration of the effectiveness and efficiency of the NGT decision making
process that has been described in the literature (Beruvide, 1995; Kolano, 1991; Sink,
1993).
As predicted by Bristol and Fern (1996), the nominal group technique allowed
members to participate in the development of the curriculum without the typical negative
affect of group dynamics. No member of the group felt s/he needed to impress other
members, nor were they inhibited by self-evaluation. Each member appeared to be acting
independently. There was no pressure for everyone to accept one point of view.
The inhibiting factor of group conformity was avoided by giving the participants
time for uninterrupted thought and the recording of their ideas. Even minority ideas and
opinions were represented, as each participant was able to influence the group’s decision.
The voting process gave each member of the team an equal voice to prioritize the
concepts that should be included in the module. Consequently, the views of the most
vocal or dominant members of the group did not have greater weight than those of others
in the group.
The nominal group technique proved to be a valuable tool for synthesizing ideasand for drawing out a number of different view points about what sustainabledevelopment practices should be integrated into current human resource managementcurriculum. Group consensus was achieved without creating conflicts or hinderingindividual thinking among team members. Differences in cultures and disciplines did notcause conflicts because the preference of each individual in the group was reflected in thefinal product since consensus was reached by mutual interaction. This process is yetanother demonstration of the effectiveness and efficiency of the NGT decision makingprocess that has been described in the literature (Beruvide, 1995; Kolano, 1991; Sink,1993). As predicted by Bristol and Fern (1996), the nominal group technique allowedmembers to participate in the development of the curriculum without the typical negativeaffect of group dynamics. No member of the group felt s/he needed to impress othermembers, nor were they inhibited by self-evaluation. Each member appeared to be actingindependently. There was no pressure for everyone to accept one point of view. The inhibiting factor of group conformity was avoided by giving the participantstime for uninterrupted thought and the recording of their ideas. Even minority ideas andopinions were represented, as each participant was able to influence the group’s decision.The voting process gave each member of the team an equal voice to prioritize theconcepts that should be included in the module. Consequently, the views of the mostvocal or dominant members of the group did not have greater weight than those of othersin the group.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..