Recommendations group dynamics
| Group dynamics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Understand panel as a group | Make this explicit (know the benefits and flaws of group decision making) |
| Introduce need for structure | Make this explicit (structure reduces room for bias) | |
| Discuss and agree on structure | Structure of “who speaks first” (e.g. rotation or novice rule); how to make final decisions | |
| Make all rules and procedures explicit | Reconsider documents, be complete to reduce need for tacit and informal knowledge/assumptions | |
| Be aware of intransitivity | Know that such complex, comparative evaluations that require a ranking suffer from inherent intransitivity: Paper, rock and scissors (i.e. no evident winners) | |
| Accountability | Everybody is accountable | Discuss and agree (e.g. filling in all relevant templates/forms) |
| Biased language | Sensitivity to language use | Use less biased language and call on each other when doing so |
| Application of criteria | Explicitly agree (or disagree) on relevant criteria | Discuss each criterion prior to starting the evaluation round (prevents relying on unclear or flawed understanding) |
| Agree on how to apply criteria | Discuss/make this explicit (e.g. weighing and compensation of criteria) | |
| Structure (for panel) | Agree and apply evaluation structure | Evaluate per criterion, not per candidate |
| Provide both inclusion and exclusion arguments | ||
| Discuss and agree upon evaluation structure | ||
| Implement required changes (e.g. flip evaluation matrix to “per criterion”) | ||
| Align discussion with evaluation structure | Applying evaluation structure means to also let discussion evolve accordingly (e.g. discuss per criterion, not per candidate) | |
| Apply discussion structure | Introduce and agree on discussion structure (e.g. who speaks first/rotate speaking time per panelist, etc.) | |
| Optimally structure physical or virtual meeting environment | Seating arrangement, e.g. mix men and women, low and high status panelists around the table or in the meeting application | |
| Invite external participant expert observer | Needs to be accepted by panelists, supporting role in meetings and coach to chair and scientific officer | |
| Structure (for interviews) | Apply strict interview guide | Prescribe the exact questions, order and panelist to ask the question across all panelists |
| Time | Spend equal time on all criteria and applications | Plan this ahead of time and communicate and apply |
| Reserve time for inclusion arguments | ||
| Reserve time for calibration | ||
| Group dynamics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Understand panel as a group | Make this explicit (know the benefits and flaws of group decision making) |
| Introduce need for structure | Make this explicit (structure reduces room for bias) | |
| Discuss and agree on structure | Structure of “who speaks first” (e.g. rotation or novice rule); how to make final decisions | |
| Make all rules and procedures explicit | Reconsider documents, be complete to reduce need for tacit and informal knowledge/assumptions | |
| Be aware of intransitivity | Know that such complex, comparative evaluations that require a ranking suffer from inherent intransitivity: Paper, rock and scissors (i.e. no evident winners) | |
| Accountability | Everybody is accountable | Discuss and agree (e.g. filling in all relevant templates/forms) |
| Biased language | Sensitivity to language use | Use less biased language and call on each other when doing so |
| Application of criteria | Explicitly agree (or disagree) on relevant criteria | Discuss each criterion prior to starting the evaluation round (prevents relying on unclear or flawed understanding) |
| Agree on how to apply criteria | Discuss/make this explicit (e.g. weighing and compensation of criteria) | |
| Structure (for panel) | Agree and apply evaluation structure | Evaluate per criterion, not per candidate |
| Provide both inclusion and exclusion arguments | ||
| Discuss and agree upon evaluation structure | ||
| Implement required changes (e.g. flip evaluation matrix to “per criterion”) | ||
| Align discussion with evaluation structure | Applying evaluation structure means to also let discussion evolve accordingly (e.g. discuss per criterion, not per candidate) | |
| Apply discussion structure | Introduce and agree on discussion structure (e.g. who speaks first/rotate speaking time per panelist, etc.) | |
| Optimally structure physical or virtual meeting environment | Seating arrangement, e.g. mix men and women, low and high status panelists around the table or in the meeting application | |
| Invite external participant expert observer | Needs to be accepted by panelists, supporting role in meetings and coach to chair and scientific officer | |
| Structure (for interviews) | Apply strict interview guide | Prescribe the exact questions, order and panelist to ask the question across all panelists |
| Time | Spend equal time on all criteria and applications | Plan this ahead of time and communicate and apply |
| Reserve time for inclusion arguments | ||
| Reserve time for calibration | ||
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Please sign in to your personal account to gift article access.
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses. You may create up to 10 links in a 30 day period.
Gift articles remaining: --
As a benefit of your subscription, you can share temporary access to restricted articles.
Each link will stop working after 30 days or 10 uses.
You have reached the limit of 10 links within a 30 day period.
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.