Functional Perspective On Group Decision Making

A useful theory to explain our processes and development as a group is Tuckman’s theory of group working which explains the stages that a group will progress through in order to achieve an objective, including the Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning stages (Mindtools, 2016). The forming stage was pre-established for our group because we had been allocated together prior to the task and we had already managed to build relationships with one another. It was at the storming stage we began to establish our roles within the group and allocate tasks for

Groupthink was created by Irving Janis in 1972. (Shore, 2010, p.3) He created this method to prevent teams from making bad decisions. Irving Janis went to Yale and began his research on groupthink there. At Yale, he researched why a team could make such an excellent decision one time and a horrible one the next time. (Shore, 2010, p.3) Since groupthink was created, it has been used in many instances without even knowing about it. Such as, the Cuban missile crisis, France’s defeat in the 1940 campaign, and the Challenger space shuttle incident.

1.4 Explain why it is important to be clear about the purpose and desired outcomes for the group

Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran developed the Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making theory to “offer practical advice on how participants can act to ensure better group decisions” (Hirokawa, 1999, p. 170). They believe that as long as the members in a group care about the issue and are reasonably intelligent, the group interaction will have a positive effect on the final decision. In order for a group to reach a high-quality solution, Hirokawa and Gouran believe the group 's decision-making process needs to fulfill four task requirements they refer to as requisite functions of effective decision making. "Three core assumptions define the functional perspective: (1) groups are goal oriented; (2) group performance varies in quality and quantity, and can be evaluated; and (3) internal and external factors influence group performance via the interaction process.” (Wittenbaum, 2004 p. 19).

Group communication follows slightly different ‘rules’ to communication in one-to-one situations. There is often more going on in a group, with a number of different people trying to speak, get their point across and their voice heard. Turn-taking can be more complicated; relationships and power issues between group members can also be more complex than in one-to-one contexts. As a communication context, groups can have a number of benefits for participants: • a group can be an effective way of sharing responsibilities • groups can improve decision-making and problem-solving because they draw on the knowledge and skills of a number of

If every journey must begin with a first step, I suppose I shall open with the first step of the Standard Agenda, Identifying and Defining the Problem. Rothwell claims that when faced with an issue, groups must first “[formulate] (the problem) into an open-ended question identifying what type of problem the group must consider” (262). He makes no claim to the time commitment needed for such a step, however, and this is where our groups differed. Femme Comm Omega and Five for Service spent a matter of moments here, and easily defined their problems. Femme Comm Omega faced deciding who should receive first priority for limited seating at a Texas University football game. Five for Service was tasked with scheduling a student organization’s monthly meeting when group members had differing interest and time constraints. Team 3

Team has to agree on the methods to which conflicts can be resolved within the group, this has to be addressed as soon as possible to enhance team cohesion and progress team effort towards achieving its goals.

Gender discrimination can be directed towards someone women, men, homosexuals, or drag queens alike. In Susan Faludi’s “The Naked Citadel,” the men of the citadel are naughtily taught to discriminate against women and homosexuals. The men see women as unequal subjects and believe that they should never be granted the opportunity to attend The Citadel. Similarly, homosexuality is looked upon as being abnormal and wrong and anyone who is homosexual is not considered a “real man.” Likewise, in Beth Loffreda’s “Losing Matt Shepard,” the gay men and women are fiercely ostracized. Group mentality plays a huge role in the reason why different groups of people are discriminated against. Large groups have the ability

Participating in teamwork in preparation for a presentation emphasizes the need for informal roles and communication during collaboration. Ewashen (2015) argues that groups with few members do not use explicit “formal groups roles” of leaders and followers, but instead have fluid “informal group roles” based on the overall goal (p. 247). Therefore, my role was informal and switched between necessary “task functions” and “maintain functions” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247). My task function was to research additional theories to support for our analysis as an “information seeker” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247). In addition, I acted as a “compromiser” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247) when there was disagreement about the necessary depth of our systems level analysis. Consequently, collaborative practice can be challenging due to diverse perspectives present, but these differences are invaluable during teamwork (Doane and Varcoe, 2014, p. 401). My informal role was successful as my flexibility supported the other diverse group functions which ultimately meet the goal of developing an evidence-based presentation. However, I could have had more of a maintenance function as a “standard setter” (Ewashen, 2015, p. 247). Our group frequently met late and got off track in our discussions due to individual differences in expectations. I could have been better at enforcing punctuality and keeping everyone on topic by explicitly modeling these behaviors. Overall, collaborating and learning with

Team members must understand the nature of team discussion and decision making---Differences in discussion habits can paralyzed a team. All team members have an approximately model in mind for how and how long a topic should be discussed.

As people, when confronted with a problem where a solution must be found, our ideal situation is to come up with the best possible one. To do this, we ideally gather the most knowledgeable, intelligent individuals into a group and attempt to derive the best solution to the problem. With the collection of these people, one would think that finding the best possible answer to the problem would be a rather simple task. However, what has happened in many situations is the complete opposite. Rather than finding the best possible solutions, many ideal, cohesive groups arrive at the worst possible answer largely due to problems in communication within the group. This is what we call the radical theory of

If every journey must begin with a first step, I suppose I shall open with the first step of the Standard Agenda, Identifying and Defining the Problem. Rothwell claims that when faced with an issue, groups must first “[formulate] (the problem) into an open-ended question identifying what type of problem the group must consider” (262). He makes no claim to the time commitment needed for such a step, however, and this is where our groups differed. Femme Comm Omega and Five for Service spent a matter of moments here, and easily defined their problems. Femme Comm Omega faced deciding who should receive first priority for limited seating at a Texas college football game. Five for Service was tasked with scheduling a student organization’s monthly meeting when group members had differing commitments and time constraints. Team 3

When doing so the other group members were active listener, by using their whole body verbally and nonverbal. Like facing the speaker and giving eye contact and try to avoided interruption. The group also acknowledges the thoughts of the speaker by giving constructive feed back. Due to the effectiveness of the group communication, we were able to build trust, respect and understand the issues and make decision for effective change. We illustrate this by coming together as a group one again to accomplish the goal we initially wanted to accomplish. Since the first organization that we had chosen was incorrect, so we had to make the necessary changes to accomplish our goals. The other effective feature is the purpose of the group. Kozier et al (2010) stated that the effective group purpose is when “goal, task, and outcomes are clarified. Understanding and modified so that members of the group can commit themselves to purposes through cooperation” (p.401). For instance, each individual was assign a task and knew what was to be accomplished. As group we all decided to meet at suitable day and time which was beneficial to all team members, because we could commit to the group and focus on what needed to be achieved.

This theory is a combined of two influential theories on group behavior, which Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats have wrote in article of ‘’Functional Roles of Group Members’’ in 1940. This theory worked in some teams that are effective in some but for some it isn’t. Their work influenced other earlier research and thinking about the function of group. The have researched more recently and have refined many ideas. Group roles are extremely useful and interesting in the way of looking at the behavior of the team. 26 different group role have been defined which can be played by one or more people within a group depends on that person’s skill.

A group engages in certain processes that naturally occur when a set of individuals are working together. In the Orientation phase, the needs of group members are to be oriented to the task, that is, to define the task, specify issues, identify expectations, and explore the nature of the work. From this, members develop a common understanding of the group's purpose. In the Testing and Dependency phase, participants generally act as if they depend on the leader to provide all the structure. They look to the leader to set the ground rules, establish the agenda, to do all the "leading," while the group members acclimate themselves to the setting. Group members exhibit behavior to test what behavior is acceptable and what is not, and begin to establish boundaries, to consider themselves as individuals in relation to the group, and to define the function of the group and the leader. This phase generally concludes when there is general agreement that the goals are achievable and that change is possible--whether it be changing behavior, making a decision, or solving a problem. Organizing to get work done involves a number of group decisions. These include establishing work rules, determining limits, defining the reward system, setting the criteria for the task, dividing the work and assigning individual responsibility for particular tasks. As it relates to