Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making

Sahil Avi Kapoor | 2014 01 21 136 | PGP 1

You can't make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen. Michelle
Obama (2010)
So going by what the First Lady of the United States of America believes, one shouldnt lay bases
of a decision on his/ her inherent apprehensions, past negative experiences, under confidence of
what might happen, or even a fear one has no logical answer for. Point well taken, madam.
Going further, David Gamell (2007) in his masterpiece Troy: Fall of Kings says, Trust your
instincts, and make judgements on what your heart tells you. The heart will not betray you. Very
logical, it sounds. Decisions that one makes in anticipation of good, with belief in oneself, and
with a determined head and heart, seldom go wrong.
And finally converging on to what the legendary management consultant, author and educator,
Peter Drucker once said. He says, Whenever you see a successful business, someone once made
a courageous decision. Again, a very believable quote dressed with obvious logic. Of course, a
business or any other initiative for that matter, be it economic or inter personal, starts with one
person putting the first foot forward. This first step is often highly risky and might carry a huge
baggage of expectations and discouraging friends, family or situations. Yet only the one who
chooses to step ahead nonetheless, is the one who has even a possibility of making it big.
All these sayings are very interesting and their larger inference even more intriguing. Going by
the experts, it seems, most of the better decisions are taken instinctively. Arguably, they also say
that only those who can shed past inhibitions, be brave and go by what their heart says, can take
effective decisions. And what one must realize here is that such an inference takes us increasingly
far from even a mere possibility of a group as a whole taking an efficient decision.
Lets consider a group of ten people who have to start up an organization. Firstly, when is it that
a group of ten individuals share the same fears, let alone shed them before taking a decision?
How do we ensure that all ten are willing to comprehensively get past their apprehensions?
Secondly, when is it that all ten people will share the same gut feelings? How are they supposed
to trust the instincts, of another group member and jump in? Thirdly, can ten people really bank
on each other and plunge into murky waters? Who then shall be accountable for such a risk?
Description of the Project
We start with an informed assumption that either group decision making does not work, or that
dynamics in a group should follow a set structure to bear any effective and useful decisions. In
the following text, I propose to extrapolate the Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
to observations from our recently concluded project for the Photo Novel Company. By the end
of this paper, I also expect to lay a foundation on whether group decision making is a feasible
option after all.
SAHIL KAPOOR

Method of Recording Observations

A short survey was circulated among the members of two selected Photo Novel teams. These
teams were selected on the basis of judges comments, Mr. Kallol Das in depth reviews and
popular sentiments towards each Photo Novel. Team A presented a splendid project that deeply
entailed the companys vision Entertain, Educate, Empower, apart from maintaining a strong
sense of camaraderie throughout. Meanwhile, Team B presented a satisfactory project that
diluted the objective to educate and empower. The team also experienced many instances of
internal friction and disinterest throughout the making.
Questions Pursued
1. How satisfied are you with your Photo Novel?
2. Did your team set any short term objectives? If yes, what were they?
3. How did your team measure the compliance towards these goals?
4. Were team members accountable towards their individual contributions?
5. Did your team face any problem in the making of the Photo Novel? If yes, what were they?
6. How did you deal with these problems?
7. Who all were consulted by the Director, to address these problems?
8. Were these suggestions reviewed by the team before implementation?
9. How often did the group meet?
10. What was discussed in these meetings?
Origin of the Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making
An article by Abran J. Salazar in the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory (2012) describes the
Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making as a unified set of claims, beliefs, observations
and assumptions that explain the role of communication to the qualitative aspect of group
decisions. The theory is widely believed to have been a result of the research by eminent
communication scientists Dennis Gouran and Randy Hirokawa. The theory rests on three pillars
of modern communication sciences, John Deweys work on reflective thinking, the study on
interaction processes by Robert Bales and the research on vigilant decisions by Irving Janis.
The Theory and Corresponding Observations
The theory puts down four ways that can assist a group in taking effective decisions collectively.
1. Problem Analysis
Can anything be improved or worked upon? Such a question only be answered if the
group sits together and looks deeply at the current scenario. There are members in the
group who will be happy with how things are going, and shall always go, but the failure
in recognizing an impending hazard often leads to disaster. Thus, if theres a problem,
the whole group must be on the same page as regards to it. Additionally, they must
together understand the cause, extent and severity of the problem at hand.
SAHIL KAPOOR

From my observations, Group A was quick to identify small problems which came in the
way of the making of the Photo Novel. Problems such as collaboration among members,
conflict of ideas, compliance towards deadlines and not being able to work collectively
as a unit were identified and suitably analyzed. Thus, the members thoroughly enjoyed
working together and the team consistently finished tasks ahead of deadlines.
On the other hand, Group B hardly ever sat down to identify or analyze the problems.
Most members felt discomfort and dip in efficiency when working as a team but they
never acknowledged it among themselves. Thus, the project was always pursued as an
assignment thrust upon them for which they reluctantly took out time.
2. Goal Setting
Even when the problem is identified and analyzed, the group members need to be clear
about the common objective. The group also must put down the varied points on which
the solutions must be reviewed. A minimum criteria for each solution to be deemed
useful could be a way forward here. This step is extremely important for the group to
function as a unit and be driven by a logical and reasonable flow.
Through the survey it was gauged that Team A set short personal targets while preparing
the Photo Novel. These targets were set by the team after ample brainstorming and
feasibility analysis. Each member tried adhering to these objectives, thus being
accountable for their personal deliverables.
Meanwhile, Team B only took up tasks when compelled to do so by the nearing deadlines.
Thus most of their work was fudged together at the last moment. Goal setting was clearly
out of question.
3. Identification of Alternatives
Its of paramount importance that any group gets a number of alternatives together in
the form of probable solutions. Apart from the number, quality and relevance of this
accumulated data also holds significance. Many a times, the final decision is the
combination of these alternatives. Otherwise, the best solution can easily be sourced
from this resource pool.
Team A inculcated a culture of brainstorming and coming up with solutions for problems
that they faced on the way. Each and every member suggested alternatives, critiqued
these alternatives and then played a part in choosing the final solution.
Team Bs Director usually took decisions in isolation. At most, he consulted members who
happened to be his friends from before. This gave him a very biased notion of the
problems that the team faced, and hence the team came out with hollow, purposeless
alternatives and final solutions.
4. Evaluation of Positive and Negative Characteristics

SAHIL KAPOOR

Identifying solutions is half the task done, the other half is arguably much more complex
as it involves the evaluation of all the options that the group accumulated. As this is highly
relative in nature, this usually needs a comprehensive testing of proposed theories and
pitching of each idea and its merits against all others.
Team A dabbled with multiple high quality options, thus critiquing them was an exercise
in proactive thinking. The range of these solutions also helped them traverse a large
expanse of ideas, and in the evaluation process, many a useful solutions were
encountered. The team enjoyed these sessions of compiling, evaluating, ranking and then
selecting of suggested alternatives.
Team B had a handful of alternatives to dabble with, thus evaluation was a futile and
redundant job. The team jumped onto any possible alternatives and did not participate
in any kind of evaluation processes.
Role of Communication in Fulfilling the Functions
Discussion among group members is vital to any group decision. This interaction can be classified
as:
1. Promotive: Interaction that moves the group forward towards the common objective by
invoking one of the four aforementioned functions.
2. Disruptive: Interaction that moves the group away from the objective, by diverting
attention or by frustrating the members.
3. Counteractive: Interaction that group members use to get the group dynamics and
conversation back on track.
However, its often hard to correctly code group discussions as each useful interaction has the
ability to divert, while many a random inputs might prove useful ultimately.
A vital observation that brings out stark differences between the functioning patterns of the two
teams, is that Team B hardly ever understood the role of communication within the team. While
Team As habit of brainstorming, collation and evaluation spared them the horror of internal
friction or disinterest.
Critical Commentary
It is evident from the results of the above observations as well as the judges comments on the
final presentations that Team A through a logical flow of team decision making and effective
communication achieved brilliant success. Thus, team decision making is surely not an
impossibility. It is although, an exercise in collaboration through a complex but powerful
framework of problem analysis, goal setting, identification of alternatives and evaluation of
characteristics.
In another viewpoint, the functional perspective on group decision making is limited to small
groups. This can very aptly be explained through the micro - economic concepts of economies
SAHIL KAPOOR

and diseconomies of scale. Quoting economist N. Gregory Mankiw from his publication,
Principles of Microeconomics (2012), Economies of scale arise because higher production
levels allow specialization of labour and permits each worker to become better at a specific task.
Meanwhile, diseconomies of scale arise because of coordination problems that are inherent in
any large organization. For example: More cars that Ford produces, the more stretched the
management team becomes, and the less effective the managers become at keeping costs low.
Thus, the theory was verified through real life instances but in all probability remains limited to
a small group of individuals.

References
1. Michelle Obama (2010); Retrieved from www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/decisionmaking
2. David Gamell (2007), Troy: Fall of Kings; Retrieved from
www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/decision-making
3. Peter Drucker; Retrieved from
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/peter_drucker.html
4. Abran J. Salazar (2012), The Encyclopedia of Communication Theory; Retrieved from
http://www.sagepub.com/edwards/study/materials/reference/77593_8.2ref.pdf
5. Wikispaces (2014); Retrieved from
http://educ5102.wikispaces.com/Functional+Perspective+on+Group+Decision+Making+
(Hirokawa+%26+Gouran)
6. Arun Jacob (2009), Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making; Retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/ajacob/functional-perspective-on-group-decision-making
7. N. Gregory Mankiw (2014), Principles of Microeconmics

SAHIL KAPOOR