Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making

The decision making process includes cognitive processes that eventually lead to a choice in action while taking into consideration the alternative possibilities (Allen, Dorozenko, & Roberts, 2016). Not all choices have to lead to an action. The values and preferences of the person making the choice also comes into play when making the final decision. Problem-solving to obtain a certain goal or satisfactory by a solution is the main reason people go through the decision making process (Stefaniak, & Tracey, 2014). This process has many factors that end with one final result or solution. The decisions made can be rational or irrational and can be determined by explicit or tacit knowledge (Qingyao, Dongyu, & Weihua, 2016). Since the decision making process can be very difficult at time, psychologists have viewed the process in different perspectives to get a better understanding (Rossi, Picchi, Di Stefano, Marongiu, & Scarsini, 2015). The different perspectives include; psychological, cognitive, and normative or communicative rationality.

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).

Learning how to work effectively in a group situation is key to success in many professions as well as in social situations. Groups vary from each other based on the individuals that make up each group, all of us belong to various groups at one time or another. The roles that we fulfill vary from group to

In school, students can take information from their teacher. They can go through the information and change it to make it easier for them to understand. The teacher and the student may have different ways of explaining or learning about the same thing. In this example the teacher would be the dominant “group.”

There are many factors altering group behavior and effectiveness, such as decision- making, cohesion and communication (Crocker, 2016). The later has also shown a positive relationship with group task cohesion (Smith et al., 2013), and methods of enhancing intrateam

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

Decision making is affected by the Group Think because of the lack of openness that should be displayed and offered by everyone involved. The development of the organization is dependent on the ability of the group to make decisions that are thought through and not made solely on pressures and accepted or narrow minded ways that are not thought out.

Barker, L. L., Kathy,J., Wahler, K. W., Watson, R and Kibler, J ( 1987) Groups in Process: Introduction to Small Group Communication, 3rd edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J

The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack

The discussions broke the team members into two distinct groups. The debate that was held about the two candidates revolved main around the values that each member held to be more desirable; friendliness and experience versus reliability and knowledge. The first group argued that the friendlier candidate would be a better fit for the position mainly because the members of that group tended to be more heavily involved in people oriented side of the organization, while the other group and the other candidate were more versed in the technical side of the organization. However, rather than this group meeting basing its agenda on the discussion of the values of the candidates, it was a series of comparison arguments in which each side attempted to argue why the other candidate would not do well in the open position. Both groups turned away from the civility required for such a group discussion to be rational and productive, and instead adopted a hostile approach.

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.

what ever decision has been made, it has been done so on the basis of

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