The document discusses Hirokawa and Gouran's functional perspective on group decision making. It identifies four key functions for effective decision making: 1) analyzing the problem, 2) setting goals, 3) identifying alternatives, and 4) evaluating alternatives. It also describes a Function-Oriented Interactive Coding System that classifies utterances based on which function they address and whether they facilitate or disrupt the group's work. However, the functional perspective is criticized for overemphasizing rationality and underestimating relationship and historical factors.

1. GROUP DECISION MAKING AND THE FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE Of Hirokawa and Gouran

2. GROUP DECISION MAKING INTRO SYNERGY CONTRIBUTORS TO SYNERGY (BALES) “ Interaction Process ( SYSTEM ) Analysis” comments that reflect group task (TASK-ORIENTED - PISTON) gives (1) suggestion, (2) opinion, (3) information asks for (1) suggestion, (2) opinion, (3) information comments that reflect relationships (+/-) ( SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL – LUBRICANT ) is (4) friendly, (5) reduces tension, (6) agrees is (4) unfriendly, (5) creates tension, (6) disagrees Good groups maintain balance between the six pairs. 2:1 ratio of positive to negative is optimal: i.e. an element of conflict is healthy, even necessary INPUT (Information) – PROCESS (Talk) – OUTPUT (Decisions)

3. OTHER APPROACHES include BORMANN’S SYMBOLIC CONVERGENE THEORY (focus on bonding) FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE (focus on functions necessary for effective decision-making) ADAPTIVE STRUCTURATION THEORY (focus on “rules” and “resources”)

4. PHASE MODELS These attempt to identify universal pattern of communication for group decision-making e.g. Orientation: addresses need for info, focus Conflict: disagreements about right approach Coalescence: negotiation and saving face Development: concentration, focus Integration: tension-free solidarity, cohesion

5. The Four Functions for Effective Decision Making 1 : Analysis of the problem - realistic analysis of current situation, including assessment of current threats and of the nature, extent and probable cause of problems 2 : Goal setting - the group needs: clarity as to purpose criteria for judging proposed solutions

6. The Four Functions (ctd) 3 : Identification of alternatives - as many as possible, to increase chance identifying acceptable solutions 4 : Evaluation of positive and negative features of each alternative Some group tasks have a positive bias – positive attributes emphasized; others have a negative bias.

7. Prioritizing the Four Functions No one function is more important than others; order is not important Salience/order reflects context/task So long as the functions are covered, the group is working effectively Most common route: problem analysis, goal setting, identifying alternatives, weighing alternatives

8. The Role of Communication Promotive interaction calls attention to one of the four functional components Disruptive interaction detracts from the group’s ability to achieve the four functions. Most group communication disrupts. Counteractive interactions refocuses the group, and is especially important.

9. Function-Oriented Interactive Coding System This classifies each functional utterance Raters determine which of the four functions an utterance addresses They determine whether an utterance facilitates or disrupts a group’s focus or function Functional perspective accounts for 60% of total variance in group performance However, quality is more important than quantity

10. Critique FOICS analysis difficult Over-emphasizes rationality as opposed to relationship-oriented content/social-emotional satisfaction Underestimates importance of group’s prior history (and history of how previous decisions were made), and group’s location within larger organization

11. PRACTICAL ADVICE RECOGNIZE SYMPTOMS DIAGNOSE CAUSE ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR SOLUTION CONSIDER POSSIBLE REMEDIES TEST TO DETERMINE WHICH REMEDY WILL WORK IMPLEMENT BEST SOLUTION