THE ACUTE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF NOMINAL GROUPING TO NEGATIVITY


Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 14, 1987 

 16

THE ACUTE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF NOMINAL GROUPING TO NEGATIVITY 
 

Gene E. Burton, California State University, Fresno 
 

ABSTRACT 
 
There is a growing body of literature regarding the relative 
advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making 
processes such as interacting groups, brainstorming groups, 
Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Prior research suggests 
a contingency approach to the selection of that process that 
best fits the nature of the problem, the nature of the group, 
and the nature of the participants. This report deals with a 
new finding for that body of literature--that the final vote in 
the five-step nominal grouping procedure can be 
significantly influenced by the slightest negativistic 
discussion. 
 

GROUP DECISION-MAKING 
 
The manager in today’s dynamic business environment is 
well aware of the need to involve others in the decision-
making process. The complexity of modern business is such 
that no one executive, despite his/her exceptional skills and 
knowledge, can resolve complicated business problems 
without input from a growing number of experts and 
advisors. Thus, operational necessity results in more and 
more use of the group process. 
 
Interacting groups are found to be superior to individual 
working alone in a number of situations [321. Brainstorming 
groups, one of the more popular interacting procedures, are 
found to be superior to the same number of people 
brainstorming separately and independently [30]. Research 
[25] reports that people produce from 65% to 93% more 
ideas in a group activity than when working alone, and that 
mental output can be increased by more than 50% when 
stirred by the competition of others in the group. Another 
study [30] found that engineers were able to produce “44% 
more worthwhile ideas” using a group brainstorming 
technique than when members worked alone using other 
than brainstorming techniques. Brainstorming groups are 
also found to be better decision-makers than traditional 
discussion groups [5;31]. In general terms, groups tend to 
outperform individuals working alone because: (1) the group 
has a greater sum total of information and knowledge; (2) 
the group represents a greater number of approaches to the 
problem, as individuals tend to fall into thinking ruts; (3) 
participation in the group decision-making process increases 
acceptance so that, when a group agrees to the solution of a 
problem, a greater number of people accept the 
responsibility for making the solution work; and (4) there is 
better comprehension of both the problem and the solution, 
and chances of communication failures during solution 
implementation are reduced [26; 40]. 
 

INTERACTING VS NOMINAL GROUPS 
 
A contingency approach is suggested for the choice of the 
appropriate group process for a given problem- solving 
activity. For instance, interacting groups are found to be 
superior at synthesizing information, evaluating information, 
and achieving group consensus [20; 36]. Nominal groups are 
found to be superior at fact-finding, idea-generation, 
establishing objectives and priorities, and the reduction of 
errors and estimation variability [5; 6; 11; 12; l3; l4; 15; 16; 

24; 34; 25]. Selected studies [11; 12; 35; 36] found that 
nominal group members perceive greater levels of 
satisfaction with performance than interacting group 
members. Another experiment found no significant 
differences in satisfaction levels between the two techniques 
[21]. Still another test [101 found greater perception of 
satisfaction for interacting group members than for nominal 
group members. This somewhat conflicting body of research 
suggests that the level of perceived satisfaction is a function 
of situational factors such as the nature of the individual, the 
nature of the group, and the nature of the problem. 
 
Advantages of Nominal Grouping 
 
In general, nominal groups have demonstrated a number of 
advantages over the interacting groups: 
 
1. Most problems inherent in the interacting process, 

that inhibit creative thinking, are eliminated or 
reduced by the nominal structure [6; l5; l6; 34] 

 
2. The structured group norm emphasizes tolerance for 

nonconforming ideas, minority opinions, and 
conflicting philosophies [12; 36; 39]. 

 
3. Strong personalities tend not to dominate the group 

process [28]. 
 
4. Hidden agenda and political group dynamics are 

reduced by the emphasis on individual written work 
[19]. 

 
5. Evaluative and elaborative interactions are avoided 

during the critical time when the problem dimensions 
are generated [27]. 

 
6. There is a better balance between task roles and 

socio-emotional group maintenance roles [36]. 
 
7. The structured format forces equal participation 

among all group members [36]. 
 
8. The procedure devotes more time to idea- generation 

and less time to idea-evaluation, providing a greater 
quantity of quality ideas [2]. 

 
9. Each participant is given the time and the opportunity 

to think through and record each idea, promoting 
problem-centered ideas of high quality [18; 36]. 

 
10. Since no discussion is permitted during the listing and 

recording steps, the structured procedure eliminates 
the problem of focusing on one train of thought or 
centering around one perceived “good” idea for long 
periods of time 
[2]. 

 
11. The round-robin technique for idea-generation 

facilitates self-disclosure, promotes the sharing of 
risky dimensions with other group members, and 
decreases arguments over semantics [35]. 



Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 14, 1987 

 17

12. The structured process imposes a burden on all 
members to produce their share toward achieving the 
group goal [1]. 

 
13. Group members feel a sense of responsibility to 

achieve group success [3]. 
 
14. Tension, resulting from the structure, maximizes 

individual involvement, commitment, and creativity 
[33]. 

 
15. The structured procedure reduces the “self- 

weighting” effect by which members participate only 
to the degree they feel equally competent with other 
group members [12]. 

 
16. The written assignment induces a greater sense of 

permanence than does oral communication [5]. 
 
17. The controlled procedure prevents “speedy,” 

premature closure to the search for better alternatives 
[13; 2]. 

 
18. Nominal groups develop a problem-orientation that is 

more thorough and intuitive than the solution-
orientation of the interacting group [13]. 

 
19. There is better consistency of decision-making [14]. 
 
20. Nominal group sessions tend to end with a greater 

perceived sense of closure, accomplishment, and 
interest in future phases of the problem-solving 
process [13; 35]. 

 
21. The skills needed to lead or facilitate a nominal 

grouping process are easily attainable [36]. 
 
Uses of Nominal Grouping 
 
Nominal grouping has been successfully applied at all 
organizational levels in a wide range of institutions, 
including social services, government agencies, health care 
facilities, universities, and businesses [2;5;16; 22] . The 
nominal process has been used for all sorts of activities such 
as the identification of preferred human qualities [41], the 
identification of communication problems [22], the 
identification of training needs [20], the identification of 
organizational problems [8;22;36], the identification of 
personal problems [8;36], the identification of motivational 
factors [91, the identification of strategic issues and the 
determination of programs for their resolution [17], task 
force design [17], change implementation [17], OD 
intervention [29], MBO programs 139], formulation of a 
Program Planning Mode (PPM) [17], design of a 
management information system [391, development of 
solutions to case problems [14], and subject probability 
estimations [24]. 
 
Nominal Grouping Procedures 
 
Nominal grouping practitioners agree about the need for 
structure in the process, but they disagree about the exact 
procedures to follow. 
 
The Three-Step, One-Vote Procedure. Considerable research 
[7; 9; 10; 21; 22; 23] has utilized a three-step procedure with 
only one voting stage. Typically, this procedure is conducted 
as follows: Step 1 - Listing -Each participant is asked to 
work silently and alone in preparing a written list of 
responses to the group task. Step 2 - Recording - Each 

participant offers an idea from his/her list, in a round-robin 
fashion, to the group facilitator, who records the ideas on a 
master list in full view of the group. The round-robin 
continues until all ideas from individual lists are recorded on 
the master list. Individuals are encouraged to “hitchhike” on 
other ideas and to continue to add ideas to their own lists 
throughout the recording process. Step 3 - Voting - Each 
participant votes, on a separate ballot, his/her preference as 
to the best five ideas on the master list, in order of 
preference. The votes are tabulated on a 5-4-3-2-1 scale (five 
points for the best idea, four points for the next best idea, 
etc.). The votes are calculated and recorded on the master 
list. No verbal interaction is permitted during the first three 
steps except that necessary to explain or clarify an idea. 
 
The Four-Step, One-Vote Procedure. Other studies [17; 35; 
36] used the four-step, one-vote procedure, which adds a 
discussion step between recording and voting, as follows: 
Step 1 - Listing; Step 2 -Recording; Step 3 - Discussion--the 
group reviews, discusses, evaluates, clarifies ideas, 
eliminating some, adding some, and combining some; and 
Step 5 -Voting. 
 
The Five-Step, Two-Vote Procedure. Still other research [8; 
20; 37; 38] uses a five-step procedure with two votes, as 
follows: Step I - Listing; Step 2 -Recording; Step 3 - Voting; 
Step 4 - Discussion; Step 5 - Final Voting. 
 
If the total group is large (20 or more), it is suggested that 
the total group be divided into smaller sub-groups of 7 to 10 
for steps one through three and then reconvened as one large 
group for steps four and five. 
 
Discussion Time in Nominal Grouping 
 
One of the unresolved issues in nominal grouping is the role 
of the discussion period and its effect on the voting process. 
Some practitioners contend that the great strength of the 
nominal grouping technique is its structured process that 
delimits interactions and the associated inhibiting factors. 
Others claim that, by adding the discussion AFTER the first 
vote, the evaluative discussion should have minimal effect 
on the final vote, and the discussion period gives the 
nominal process the advantage of the “pooling” of 
information and knowledge, which is the strength of the 
interacting or brainstorming process. In other words, the 
five-step, two-vote procedure is designed to capture the 
unique strengths shown by both the nominal grouping and 
the interacting processes. 
 
One prior study [4] found that, with the five-step, two-vote 
technique, the final voting for an idea was significantly 
correlated to the amount of time the idea was discussed 
during the discussion step. 
 

THE EXPERIMENT 
 
The purpose of this inquiry was to measure the influence of 
negative discussion time on the final vote in the five-step, 
two-vote nominal grouping procedure. Two different student 
groups were used in the experiment to generate ideas on how 
to improve campus parking. The first group consisted of 41 
students, who met early in the day. They were placed into 
six small groups for steps 1, 2, and 3, and then gathered into 
one large group for steps 4 and 5. Later in the day, a second 
group of 28 students performed the same exercise, using 
four sub-groups for the first three steps. After the first voting 
of the second group, the facilitator studied the master lists 
and selected two ideas that: (1) were on all four lists; (2) had



Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 14, 1987 

 18

 “average” vote scores; and (3) had “average” vote scores 
from the first nominal exercise earlier in the day. The two 
ideas chosen had been ranked third and fifth in the final vote 
of the day’s first experiment, and were ranked fifth and sixth 
after the first vote of the second exercise. Two students 
taking part in the current exercise, but from two different 
subgroups, were selected to act as “confederates” during the 
discussion period by focusing negative discussion on the two 
“test ideas.” During the discussion period, two timers 
recorded the amount of discussion time, both positive and 
negative, directed toward each idea discussed. That is, one 
timer recorded the negative discussion time and the other 
timer recorded the positive discussion time. 
 

RESULTS 
 
The comparisons of the nominal grouping first vote versus 
the final vote, along with the amount of positive and 
negative discussion time, are shown in Table 1. The two 
“test ideas” which received the special negative discussion 
treatment had earlier been ranked during the first vote in the 
fifth and sixth positions. After the negative discussion, the 
final vote dropped them to the eighth and ninth positions. 

Table 2 shows that, for every minute of positive discussion 
time devoted to an idea, its vote score increased by an 
average of 3.06 weighted votes. However, for every minute 
of negative discussion time received by an idea, it lost an 
average of 4.66 weighted votes. That is, the second vote is 
strongly influenced by the discussion period, especially by 
the negative discussion. 

 
The results of the experiment are somewhat unexpected and 
raise some serious questions regarding the role of the 
discussion step and its possible undue influence on the 
outcome of the final vote. Certainly, broad generalizations 
cannot be made after only one experiment, but the potential 
impact of these findings is such that further research is 
planned for the immediate future. 
 
The potential implications for the nominal grouping 
practitioner are considerable, to say the least. Certainly, the 
discussion period might best be eliminated, especially if the 
nature of the problem and the group is such that free and 
open creativity is essential. The presence of the CEO or 
other high-status persons/experts might necessitate the 
elimination of the discussion period. Even if the discussion 
is permitted, the facilitator, who now knows the unique 
susceptibility of the final vote to any negativism may be 
tempted or even required to monitor and try to limit negative 
evaluations. Unfortunately, this sort of facilitator behavior 
tends to destroy the facilitator’s traditional role by forcing 
him/her into a judgment function that would seriously impair 
the overall atmosphere and probably inhibit the total process. 
Further research into this potential flaw in the nominal 
grouping process is in order. 
 

REFERENCES 
 
[1] Bales, R., “The Equilibrium Problem in Small 

Groups,” in T. Parsons et al (Eds.), Working Papers in 
the Theory of Action (Glencoe; Free Press, 1953). 

 
[2] Ball, T. and S. Jones, “The Utilization of Nominal 

Groups as an Aid in the Marketing Organization,” 
Proceedings:  Southeast AIDS, 1977, pp. 63-65. 

 
[3] Benne, K. and P. Sheats, “Functional Roles of Group 

Members,” Journal of Social Science, Vol. 2, 1948, pp. 
42-47. 

 
[4] Betts, C. and J. Gauff, “The Influence of Discussion 

Time in Nominal Grouping,” Proceedings:  National 
ORSA/TIMS, 1984. 

 
[5] Bouchard, T., “Personality, Problem-Solving 

Procedure, and Performance in Small Groups,” Journal 
of Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 53, No. 1, 
1953, pp. 1-29. 

 
[6] Bouchard, T. and M. Hare, “Size, Performance, and 

Potential in Brainstorming Groups,” Journal of 
Applied Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 1, 1970, pp. 51-55. 

 
[7] Burton, G., D. Pathak, and R. Zigli, “The Effects of 

Group Size on Nominal Grouping,” Santa Clara 
Business Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1977, pp. 25-31. 

 
[8] Burton, G., D. Pathak, and R. Zigli, “Combining the 

Gordon and Nominal Grouping Techniques to Help 
Groups Identify Core Problems,” Proceedings:  
Southeast TIMS, 1977. 

 
[9] Burton, G., D. Pathak, and R. Zigli, “Nominal 

Grouping and the Motivational Status of Educational 
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants,” 
Proceedings:  Southeast AIDS, 197b. 

 
[10] Burton, G. and D. Pathak, “Social Character and Group 

Decision-Making,” S.A.M. Advanced Management 
Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1978, pp. 12-20. 



Developments in Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 14, 1987 

 19

[11] Burton G., D. Pathak, and R. Zigli, “Group 
Performance and Group Loyalty: A Comparison of 
Brainstorming and Nominal Grouping,” Proceedings:  
Southeast AIDS, 1970. 

 
[12] Burton, G., D. Pathak, and R. Zigli, “Mitigating the 

Effects of Conformity and Self-Weighting Through 
Nominal Grouping,” Proceedings: National AIDS, 
1979. 

 
[13] Burton, G., “The Effects of Nominal Grouping on 

Performance, Closure, and the Propensity to Achieve 
Speedy, Premature Decisions,” Proceedings: Western 
Academy of Management, 1981. 

 
[14] Burton, G., “The Use of Nominal Grouping to Improve 

the Solution of a Case Study,” Proceedings:  National 
ORSA/TIMS, 1984. 

 
[15] Campbell, J., “Individual Versus Group Problem- 

Solving in an Industrial Sample,” Journal of Applied 
Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1968, pp. 205-210. 

 
[161 Corprew, J., H. Davis, and R. Blalack, “Using Nominal 

Grouping and Brainstorming as Intervention 
Techniques in an Organization Development Effort at 
a University,” Proceedings: Southeast AIDS, 1976, pp. 
275-276. 

 
[17] Delbecq, A. and A. Van de Ben, “A Group Process 

Model for Problem Identification and Program 
Planning,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 
Vol. 7, No. 4, 1971, pp. 466-482. 

 
[18] Dunnette, M., “Are Meetings Any Good for Solving 

Problems?”, Personnel Administration, 1964, pp. 12-
29. 

 
[19] Foureizos, N., M. Hutt, and H. Guetzkow, 

“Measurement of Self-Oriented Needs in Discussion 
Groups,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 
Vol. 45, 1950, pp. 682-690. 

 
[20] Green, T., “An Empirical Analysis of Nominal and 

Interacting Groups,” Academy of Management 
Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1975, pp. 63-73. 

 
[21] Green, T., W. Newsom, and L. Welch, “Perceived 

Level of Group Satisfaction in Nominal and Interacting 
Groups,” Proceedings:  Southeast AIDS, 1975, pp. 
227-228. 

 
[22] Green, T. and P. Pietri, “Using Nominal Grouping to 

Improve Upward Communication,” MSU Business 
Topics, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1974, pp. 3743. 

 
[23] Green, T. and W. Vroman, “The Nominal Group: A 

Model to Facilitate Change Through Quantitative 
Analysis,” Proceedings:  Southeast AIDS, 1975. 

 
[24] Gustafson, D., R. Shukla, A. Delbecq, and G. Walster, 

“A Comparative Study of Differences in Subjective 
Likelihood Estimates Made by Individuals, Interacting 
Groups, Delphi Groups, and Nominal Groups,” 
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 
Vol. 9, 1973, pp. 280-291. 

 
[25] LeBoeuf, M., The Productivity Challenge (New York: 

McGraw-Hill, 1982). 
 
[26] Magnusen, K., Organizational Design, Development, 

and Behavior (Glenview: Scott, Foresman and 
Company, 1977). 

 
[27] Maier, N. and L. Hoffman, “Quality of First and 

Second Solutions in Group Problem-Solving,” Journal 
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 4, 1960, pp. 310-
323. 

 
[28] Maier, N. and A. Maier, “An Experimental Test of the 

Effects of ‘Development’ vs. ‘Free’ Discussions on the 
Quality of Group Decisions,” Journal of Applied 
Psychology, Vol. 4, 1957, pp. 320-323. 

 
[29] Mosley, D. and T. Green, “Nominal Grouping as an 

Organizational Development Intervention Technique,” 
Training and Development Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, 
1974, pp. 30-37. 

 
[30] Osborn, A., Applied Imagination (New York: 

Scribners, 1957). 
 
[31] Parnes, J., “Effects of Extended Effort in Creative 

Problem-Solving,” Journal of Education Psychology, 
Vol. 52, 1961, pp. 171-176. 

 
[32] Taylor, D., P. Berry, and C. Block, “Does Group 

Participation When Using Brainstorming Facilitate or 
Inhibit Active Thinking?”, Administrative Science 
Quarterly, Vol. 3, 1958, pp. 2 3-47. 

 
[33] Thompson, P., P. Hammond, R. Hawkes, and A. 

Tuben, Comparative Studies in Administration 
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1959). 

 
[34] Torrance, E., “Group Decision-Making and 

Disagreement,” Social Forces, Vol. 35, 1957, pp. 314-
318. 

 
[35] Van de Ven, A. and A. Delbecq, “Nominal versus 

Interacting Group Process for Committee Decision-
Making Effectiveness,” Academy of Management 
Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1971, pp. 203-212. 

 
[36] Van de Ven, A. and A. Delbecq, “The Effectiveness of 

Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision-
Making Processes,” Academy of Management Journal, 
Vol. 14, No. 2, 1974, pp. 203-212. 

 
[37] Vroman, W. and T. Green, “The Nominal Group 

Process, Hierarchy and the Decision Scientist,” 
Proceedings: Southeast AIDS, 1975, pp. 225-22b. 

 
[38] Vroman, W. and J. McDonald, “An Application of 

Nominal Grouping in Continuing Education,” 
Proceedings: National AIDS, 1976. 

 
[39] Vroom, V., L. Grant, and T. Cotton, “The 

Consequences of Social Interaction in Group Problem-
Solving,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 
4, 1969, pp. 314-318. 

 
[40] Wertheimer, ?4., Productive Thinking (New York: 

Harper, 1959). 
 
[41] Zigli, R., G. Burton, and D. Pathak, “In Pursuit of the 

Ideal Professor: A Nominal Grouping Technique,” 
Proceedings:  National AIDS, 1978. 


	Table of Contents
	Volume 14, 1987
	Simulation Gaming as An Experimental Context for the Study of Multicriteria Decision Making
	How to Multiply Your Management Game
	Grading the Personnel In-Basket Exercise
	Simulation: The Players™ Perspective
	The Acute Susceptibility of Nominal Grouping to Negativity
	The Relative Value of the National ABSEL Meetings: An Analysis of Perceptions by Faculty and Deans
	A Survey of Behavioral Labs Used by American Business Schools
	A Structured Framework for Applying Conceptual Models to Problem Analysis: Hardening Up
	An Expert System Approach for Teaching Marketing Case Analysis
	From Theory to Practice: A Model for Teaching Beginning Advertising
	The Use of a Simple Forecasting Technique During an Interactive Computerized Business Game
	An Investigation of the Relationship Between Formal Planning and Simulation Team Performance and Satisfaction
	The Exponential Logarithm as an Algorithm for Business Simulations
	Learning macroeconomic Theory and Policy Analysis Via Microcomputer Simulation
	Laptop: A Principles of Marketing Simulation
	Teaching About Sampling in a Marketing Research Class
	Integrating Decision Support Systems and Business Games
	Demand Generation in a Service Industry Simulation: An Algorithmic Paradox
	ABSEL - At a Crossroads?
	Research on Predicting Performance in the Simulation
	An Expert System for Financial Planners
	"Developing Various Student Learning Abilities Via Writing, the Stock market Game, and Modified Marketplace Game in Beginning Macroeconomics"
	Professional Activity Reports: Getting back to Basics ΠA Preliminary Investigation
	"A Comparison of Performance, Attitudes, and behaviors of MBA and BBA Students in a Simulation Environment: A Preliminary Investigation"
	Decision Styles and Student Simulation Performance: A Replication
	Personal Power Strategies: An Experiential Exercise
	LTL I: A Trucking Simulation Game
	Total Enterprise Business Games: An Evaluation
	Can the Skill of Management be Taught?
	Developing Critical Thinking and Effective Communication
	Meaningful Notebooks and Enhanced Learning Using a Totally Menu-Driven Data base and Decision Support (DSS) Program
	Using a Computerized Menu-Driven Data Entry and fiWhat-Iffl Program as a Pedagogical Enhancement for Management Simulation
	Using a Joint Project Involving MBA Marketing Management and Undergraduate Marketing Research Students to Teach Marketing Research
	Testing the PAGE Technique: Results and Further Developments
	A Comparison of Student Perceptions with Accepted Expectations for Business Simulations
	"Conflict Management in Action: Verbal Strategies, Nonverbal behaviors and Conflict Styles"
	Dramatic Monologues as Surrogates for Experiential Learning
	Influencing One™s Superior: An Assessment and Exercise
	Personality Traits and Organizational Cultures: Two One-Hour Experiential Learning Exercises
	Computype: A Strategic Marketing Game
	Open System Simulations and Simulation Based Research
	"Teaching Forecasting to the Masses: Little Decision Support Training, But a lot of Answers"
	Goal Setting and Performance Evaluation with Different Starting Positions ΠThe Modeling Dilemma
	The Gamesmanship of Pricing: Building Pricing Strategy Skills Through Spreadsheet Modeling
	Teaching MPR Experientially Through the Use of Lotus 1-2-3
	Business Simulation Through Activities of a Manufacturing Company
	Simulated Stock Broker
	Teaching Employee Counseling Skills to Management Students: A Simulation
	Airline: A Strategic Management Simulation
	Developing Simulations and Experiential Exercises on the Personal Computer: Some Critical Issues
	A Powerful Tool ΠFor What?
	An Integrative Systems Approach to Simulating Free Enterprise in a Small Business Course in a Business School
	Profits: The False Prophet
	The Use of Expert Systems to Develop Strategic Scenarios: An Experiment Using a Simulated Market Environment
	An Interdisciplinary Workshop: Spreadsheet Modeling and Case Analysis Techniques for Beginning Executive MBA Students
	An Innovative Approach to an O. D. Class ΠThe Creative Interaction
	The Application of Spreadsheet Software Technology to Complete Taxpayer Elections
	Experiential Learning as the Cornerstone of an Industry Management Course
	"Identifying, Exercising and Enhancing Right Brain Skills in the Business Classroom"
	Utilizing Envisionary Technology in the Business Policy Course: An Experiential Pedagogy
	Business Simulation in the Policy Course: A Survey of American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business
	The Moving Van: Vehicle to Success of Disaster for the Two-Gender Work Force
	Oil and Gas Well Investment Analysis Using the Lotus 1-2-3 Decision Support System
	Team Cohesion Effects on Business Game Performance