Discussion Procedures and Decision-Making Performance.

Abstract

This study sought to obtain empirical data that either directly supports or refutes the "functional" perspective advanced by recent group decision-making theorists. Specifically, the study attempted to test the general claim that the group's satisfaction of critical task-achievement functions (or requisite conditions) is a better predictor of decision-making performance than the discussion procedures it employs in arriving at a decision. A total of 48 three-member groups were randomly assigned to one of four different discussion formats. The groups were trained to use their assigned format in arriving at a decision regarding a human relations case. Two-way ANOVA revealed no significant main effect f o r 'discussion format," but a significant main effect for 'batisfaction of requisite conditions. " No interaction effect was discovered. The findings thus offer strong support for the 'functional" perspective. Other analyses indicated that the satisfaction of certain requisite conditions may be more important than others in determining group decision-making success.Group decision-making scholars have traditionally assumed that the manner in which a group arrives at a decision plays an important role in determining whether it will arrive at a low-or high-quality decision. A number of authors, for example, have suggested that a group's ability to arrive at a high-quality decision is enhanced when it approaches its task or problem in an orderly and systematic manner (e.g., McBurney

Group model-building: tackling messy problems

“…Special group process techniques like brainstorming, Delphi and the Nominal Group Technique can help to bring more structure into the discussion, which will in turn increase the group's performance as well as the commitment to a decision (White et al 1980). In that respect, the type of structure (or decision-making sequence) is of limited importance (Brilhart and Jochem 1964;Hirokawa 1985); just unthinkingly following a sequence of steps does not automatically result in a good decision (Gouran 1982;Hirokawa 1985).…”

Virtual team interaction styles: assessment and effects

“…Interaction style has been shown to have a great effect on conventional teams' ability to achieve solution quality and solution acceptance on collaborative decision tasks (Hirokawa, 1985;Watson & Michaelsen 1988;Hirokawa & Gouran, 1989;Cooke & Szumal, 1994). Group y interaction styles affect communication and thus team performance by facilitating or hindering the exchange of information among group members.…”

Building consensus in strategic decision making: System dynamics as a group support system

“…Field and laboratory studies have shown the dangers of groupthink (Janis 1972;Janis and Mann (1977)) and have demonstrated that vigilance in group decision making is more important than type of decision making sequence (Brilhart and Jochem 1964;Bayless 1967;Larson 1969;Hirokawa 1985;Hirokawa and Rost 1992). One of the great advan tages of constructing causal diagrams is that it almost automatically forces the group to think critically about their problem and that it challenges hidden assumptions.…”