Disciplinary Grounding
This is an exemplary, or representative, literature review. It categorizes and summarizes what is known on the topic of the effects of communication on group decision making. Prevalent authors and researchers in this field include, but are not limited to, Randy Y. Hirokawa (1980, 1983, 1996, 2003), Dennis S. Gouran (1973), Dale G. Leathers (1972), Marshall Scott Poole (1996), J. Kevin Barge (1996, 2003), Roger Pace (1983), Steven A. Beebe (1996, 2003), Ernest G. Bormann (1996), Lin Hui-Chao (2004) and Abran J. Salazar (1996). There are others who have and are contributing to the current research and theory, but the writings of those mentioned are referenced in this section. In this review, two themes emerged: communication patterns and quality of communication, and their effect on group decision making effectiveness.
Research from R. Hirokawa and R. Pace is abundant, starting in the early 1980’s and continuing through the 1990’s. During this time researchers focus on what effects communication has within a small group attempting to make a decision and/or solve a problem. These studies focus on simultaneously presenting groups with the same problem/decision and giving them space to come to completion. In much of the research, groups are video-taped so as to not disturb the naturally-occurring group process. Researchers put together criteria for evaluating the groups’ decisions in order to determine which groups are effective and which are ineffective in their decision-making. In Hirokawa’s early studies, researchers use a 26-category coding system for use during the observation and analyzation process. Once the criteria are determined, researchers analyze video of the groups’ discussions. In order to maintain consistency and reliability (Hirokawa R. & Pace, R., 1983), multiple teams independently and without structure, analyze each group throughout their decision-making process. Independent analysis reveals common influences of communication in the decision-making process.
Both negative and positive correlations are present in this research. The most common negative correlation is the relationship between group problem solving effectiveness and attempts to establish operating procedures within group discussion. The most common positive correlation is the relationship between group problem solving effectiveness and attempts to analyze the group problem within discussion (Hirokawa, R., 1980; Hirokawa R. & Pace, R., 1983). There are two positive correlations between group interaction and decision-making effectiveness. The more time spent on interacting and agreeing upon procedural matters and completing substantive matters first, before moving on to the next, are both positive influences for effective group decision-making.
Hirokawa R. (1980), Pace, R. (1983) and Leathers, D. (1972) each report one of two themes emerging in their research: influence of communication patterns or influence of communication quality.
Communication patterns or characteristics that influence decision-making effectiveness fit into two categories: promotive and disruptive influences. The way that members handle each influence leads the group towards either an effective or ineffective decision-making process. The characteristics that are promotive or disruptive fit into one of the following four posits. One distinct characteristic is the examination and evaluation of the validity of one another’s opinions and assumptions. A second is how members of the group handle and examine alternative options or ideas as they arise. A third is whether the group’s decision is based on accurate or inaccurate, reasonable or questionable assumptions and understood truths. A fourth is found in the nature of the input of influential member(s) of the group (Hirokawa, R., 1980; Hirokawa, R. & Pace, R., 1983). It is the responsibility of the facilitator to (a) recognize the patterns and/or (b) make the group aware of the patterns in order to move toward effective decision-making.
Leathers explores in his 1972 study the correlation between the quality of a group’s communication and the quality of their problem-solving ability. The three purposes of this study are as follows: “(1) to manipulate the quality of communication in problem-solving groups; (2) to measure the quality of communication in different groups; (3) to measure the quality of group product in groups experiencing communication of varying quality” (Leathers, 1972, p. 166). The methods of this study vary slightly from the others represented. Of the twenty groups in the study, there are three pods of seven, six and seven groups. Each pod is given a specific “treatment” to manipulate their quality of communication. Treatment #1 is of disrupted communication, implementing six variables that have been researched to cause negative effects to quality of communication. Treatment #2 is of natural communication, therefore no attempt to manipulate their communication was made. Treatment #3 is of facilitated communication, in which case each group includes two “plants.” Plants are individuals educated on ways to enhance group decision making and inserted into the group.
This research study includes similar challenges through set-up and analysis. Leathers (1972) states that “Measuring the quality of small group communication is particularly difficult because of the interactive, spontaneous and often unstructured nature of that communication” (p. 168). Analysts focus on the quality of feedback specifically, using the Leathers Feedback Rating Instrument (LFRI) which includes nine factors each on a seven-point scale. The LFRI is used to look at feedback given after an individual states an idea, shares an assumption or restates the facts and analyze disruptive or promotive feedback received. Once a solution was determined, Leathers’ analysts used D. W. Taylor’s five-point scales to measure the quality of the solution: Feasibility, Effectiveness, Generality, Probability and Significance plus an additional two qualities added by the author: Creativity, Significance and Comprehensiveness (Leathers, 1972, p. 170). Separate judges analyze the quality of communication and the quality of solution.
This study results in a confirmed hypothesis, that the groups who experienced higher quality communication throughout the process, ended with higher quality solutions. Facilitators can be encouraged that it is possible to increase a group’s effectiveness through facilitating effective communication and revealing ineffective communication during the decision-making process.
Hui-Chao’s (2004) research also reveals communication’s influence, among others, on group decision making. With a focus on better understanding the decision-making process, Hui-Chao seeks to determine how to facilitate higher level decision-making. Second to group size, communication patterns are among the most important determinants to effective decision making in groups. “Bavelas (1948) and Leavitt (1951) suggested that there are four main types of communication network” (Hui-Chao, L., 2004): the circle, chain, Y and wheel. (See Appendix A). Each network has a distinct influence on effectiveness. The two extremes, the circle and the wheel, are the most influential. When communication is forced into a circular pattern it is most active, leaderless, unorganized and erratic is its decision-making, yet enjoyable for its’ members. The opposite extreme, the wheel, provides for the least active process, with a distinct leader, that is well and stably organized, yet is unsatisfying for its’ members.
Each research method has its challenges. In an attempt to lessen the subjective influences in the study of communication patterns and decision-making effectiveness, Hui-Chao (2004) delegated a specific communication pattern to each group. Groups have a decision and/or problem and a communication pattern. Similar to previously mentioned research, researchers have no influence during the decision-making process, but observe and analyze independently afterwards. One of the challenges in Hirokawa’s (1982) research was coming up with a unanimous definition of “high-quality.” Researchers and analysts are challenged to work together to come up with definitions for a “high-quality” decision as well as the 26-category coding system to be used during observation and analysis.
There is still a need for future research. Gaps exist in the connection between understanding communication patterns and influence and how to use this information to better facilitate effective decision making. Gouran (1973) and Leavitt (1951), decades apart, are searching for ways to put this research into action for facilitators of group decision-making. J. Kevin Barge and Susan Jarboe (1996) focus on doing just that, enhancing group decision making and giving insight into how leaders can be of positive influence. Jarboe (1996) explores the procedures, rules and direct influence that a leader or facilitator can implement during the decision-making process. Barge (1996) takes a step back and considers a leader’s influence on decision-making from a mediator and/or mentor standpoint. This type of influence will be referenced later in this project in order to give facilitators a variety of tools and techniques.