© SAHIL KAPOOR 1

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 shouldn’t 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.

Let’s 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 2

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 judge’s comments, Mr. Kallol Das’ in depth reviews and

popular sentiments towards each Photo Novel. Team A presented a splendid project that deeply

entailed the company’s 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 Dewey’s 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 there’s 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 3

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

It’s 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 B’s 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 4

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, it’s 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 A’s 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 5

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/decision-

making

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