ABSTRACT
Collaboration in teams is quite remarkable. If we think about how a set of alternatives is discussed by a team facing a decision, coming to consensus about one alternative is quite complex (Hinsz, 1999). Imagine a couple attempting to select a movie to attend. Whether or not a particular film is brought up as a possible alternative depends on a large number of factors. Does the person suggesting the movie believe the movie will be good or bad? Does that person expect his or her partner would enjoy that movie? Has the person’s partner enjoyed other movies of that genre or reacted positively to previews? Does the person suggesting the movie possess some unique knowledge about the partner that may indicate the partner would go against expectations and enjoy the movie? All this information can influence whether or not a particular movie is even presented as an alternative, let alone selected and eventually attended. Expanding the number of alternatives, the number of decisions to be made, or the number of team members involved adds increasing complexity to the question. Understanding how a team of investment bankers chooses a set of stocks to maximize profitability for their clients adds multiple levels of complexity. Yet, the effectiveness of the collaboration and actions of this team is a critical question for its clients.
