This article was downloaded by: [Oregon State University]

On: 08 January 2015, At: 22:00

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Monographs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20

A descriptive investigation of the possible

communication‐based reasons for effective and
ineffective group decision making
a b
Randy Y. Hirokawa & Roger Pace
a
Assistant professor of speech communication , Pennsylvania State University ,
b
Doctoral candidate at Pennsylvania State University ,
Published online: 02 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Randy Y. Hirokawa & Roger Pace (1983) A descriptive investigation of the possible communication‐based
reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making, Communication Monographs, 50:4, 363-379, DOI:
10.1080/03637758309390175

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390175

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone
is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 A DESCRIPTIVE INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBLE
COMMUNICATION-BASED REASONS FOR EFFECTIVE
AND INEFFECTIVE GROUP DECISION MAKING
RANDY Y. HIROKAWA AND ROGER PACE

The present study sought to compare the nature and content of interaction within a
number of "effective" and "ineffective" decision-making groups in an effort to identify
consistent differences which might account for the differences in the quality of their
group decisions. The goal of the investigation was to generate data which will help us
better understand the communication-based reasons for "effective" and "ineffective"
group decision making. Using basically a qualitative approach, six "effective"groups
and five "ineffective" groups were compared. The study found that the discussions of
those two sets of groups can be distinguished on the basis of at least four
communication-related characteristics: (1) The manner in which the groups
examined opinions and assumptions advanced by group members; (2) The manner
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015

in which the groups evaluated alternative choices; (3) The nature of the premises
which served as the basis for the groups' decisions; and (4) The nature of influence
exerted by the most influential members of the groups. These four differences are
discussed in terms of specific empirically-testable propositions regarding the
relationship between group interaction and quality of group decision making.

O VER the years, a number of small

group scholars have suggested that
the group interaction (or discussion) pro-
cess plays an important role in deter-
mining whether a group will arrive at a
low- or high-quality decision.1 In fact,
several authors have gone as far as to
suggest that the principal causes of suc-
cessful and unsuccessful group decision
making are directly traceable to the
nature and content of the interaction that
precedes the decision.2
Randy Y. Hirokawa is an assistant professor of
speech communication and Roger Pace is a docto-
ral candidate at Pennsylvania State University.
1
See: Donald W. Taylor and William L. Faust,
"Twenty Questions: Efficiency in Problem-solving as a
Function of Size of Group," Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 44 (1952), 360-68; Barry E. Collins and
Harold Guetzkow, A Social Psychology of Group Pro-
cesses for Decision-Making (New York: Wiley, 1964);
Ivan D. Steiner, Group Process and Productivity (New
York: Academic Press, 1972).
2
See: B. Aubrey Fisher, "Decision Emergence:
Phases in Group Decision-making," Speech Mono-
graphs, 37 (1970), 53-66; C. David Mortensen, "The
Status of Small Group Research," Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 64 (1970), 304-09; Dennis S. Gouran, "Group
Communication: Perspectives and Priorities for Future
Research," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59 (1973),
22-29; J. Richard Hackman and Charles G. Morris,
Ironically, while many small group
scholars are inclined to believe that the
quality of a group's decision is greatly
determined by the nature and content of
its interaction, most will readily admit
that we still do not possess a precise
understanding of how group interaction
functions to affect the quality of a
group's decision. As Hackman and Mor-
ris put it, "Although there is substantial
agreement among researchers and ob-
servers of task-oriented groups that
something important happens in the
group interaction that can affect perfor-
mance outcomes . . . there is little agree-
ment about just what that 'something' is,
when it will enhance (or when it will
impair) group effectiveness, and how
it can be monitored, analyzed, and
altered."3
"Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group
Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed
Synthesis," in Advances in Experimental Social Psy-
chology, ed. L. Berkowitz (New York: Academic Press,
1975), pp. 1-55; Randy Y. Hirokawa, "Group Commu-
nication and Problem-solving Effectiveness I: A Critical
Review of Inconsistent Findings," Communication
Quarterly, 30 (1982), 131-41.
3
Hackman and Morris, p. 4.

COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, Volume 50, December 1983

 364 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
For the most part, our limited under-
standing of the role that group interac-
tion plays in successful and unsuccessful
group decision making is undoubtedly
due to the paucity of research which has
attempted to investigate how the nature
and content of group interaction contrib-
utes to effective and ineffective group
decision-making performance.4 This is
not to imply, of course, that researchers
have neglected to investigate the relation-
ship between group interaction and
group decision making.5 Unfortunately,
most of this research has tended to be
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
correlational in design and intent, with
very little attention devoted to the ques-
tion of how group interaction functions
to affect the quality of a group's decision.
As a result, while we have accumulated
evidence to suggest that variations in the
frequency of certain types of communi-
cative behaviors tend to be associated
with corresponding variations in the
quality of group decisions, we still do not
understand how the group interaction
process contributes to effective or ineffec-
tive group decision making.
It appears rather obvious, then, that in
order to acquire a better understanding
of the role that group interaction plays in
effective and ineffective group decision
making, it is essential that researchers
begin to analyze systematically the
nature and content of group discussions
in an effort to discover how the commu-
nicative behaviors of group members
influence the quality of group decisions.
The present investigation attempts to
4
5
Hirokawa, pp. 137-38.
See, e.g., Henry A. Landsberger, "Interaction Pro-
cess Analysis of the Mediation of Labor Management
Disputes," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 51 (1955),
552-58; James R. Sorenson, "Task Demands, Group
Interaction, and Group Performance," Sociometry, 25
(1962), 483-95; Randy Y. Hirokawa, "A Comparative
Analysis of Communication Patterns within Effective
and Ineffective Decision-making Groups," Communi-
cation Monographs, 47 (1980), 312-21; Dale G. Leath-
ers, "Quality of Group Communication as a Deter-
minant of Group Product," Speech Monographs, 39
(1972), 166-73.
take a step in that direction. Specifically,
it seeks to identify consistent differences
in the nature and content of interaction
within several "effective" and "ineffec-
tive" decision-making groups6 which
might account for the differences in the
quality of their respective group deci-
sions. While the intent of this research is
clearly one of systematic observation and
description (rather than controlled hy-
pothesis-testing), it is hoped that the
findings of this study will nevertheless
provide us with a better "grounding" for
understanding how the group interaction
process functions to affect the quality of
group decisions.
PROCEDURES
Obtaining Samples of "Effective" and
"Ineffective" Groups
In order to accomplish the goal of this
study, the first order of business was to
obtain samples of "effective" and "inef-
fective" decision-making groups. Such
groups were obtained in the following
manner.
Obtaining a general pool of groups.
First, a general pool of 50 decision mak-
ing groups was created by randomly
assigning each of 150 undergraduate vol-
unteers to a three-member group. The
volunteers—recruited from various sec-
tions of an introductory speech-commu-
nication course at a large Eastern uni-
versity—ranged in age from 19 to 43
(X = 20.7), and represented a variety of
academic majors. In being recruited for
the study, the volunteers were told that
they would be participating in a study of
group decision making, and that their
involvement in the study would be lim-
ited to their participation in a 30-minute
videotaped group discussion with two
6
By "effective" and "ineffective" groups, we are
referring to groups which have been determined by
external "experts" to have produced a decision which is
of a low- or high-quality as evaluated on a set of
pre-established evaluative criteria.
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
other students. None of the volunteers
were informed of the true purpose of the
study until after they had participated in
it.
Half of the groups in the pool received
a decision-making task which required
them to produce a recommendation for
dealing with a journalism student who
was caught plagiarizing on a class
assignment while the other half received
a decision-making task which required
them to produce a recommendation for
dealing with a dormitory resident who
maliciously damaged her roommate's
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
stereo system? Each group received the
same background information relevant
to their particular case, and each was
told that it would be given 30 minutes to
discuss the case and produce a written'
recommendation in regards to it. The
groups were reminded that the entire
discussion would be videotaped for later
analysis by the researchers. After
answering any questions, the researchers
left the room and returned 30 minutes
later to debrief the group and collect its
written recommendation.
Evaluating the group decisions. Once
the 50 group recommendations had been
obtained, two separate sets of judges
were employed to evaluate the quality of
those recommendations. Each set of
judges consisted of three individuals who
possessed the knowledge and expertise
necessary to evaluate accurately the
quality of those recommendations pre-
sented to them. The judges who evalu-
ated the group recommendations to the
plagiarism case consisted of a journalism
instructor and two senior journalism -
majors while the judges who evaluated
the group recommendations to the room-
mates' conflict case consisted of a former
"head resident" and two current "resi-
7
A complete description of the two case studies can be
obtained from the senior author. Special thanks are
expressed to Dennis S. Gouran for providing these
decision-making tasks.
365
dent assistants" in the University's dor-
mitory system.
The two sets of judges were asked to
evaluate their respective group recom-
mendations using the same four criteria:
(1) Appropriateness—the extent to
which the recommendation is sensible in
relation to, and suitable for, the type of
act under consideration; (2) Warranted-
ness—the extent to which the recom-
mendation is based upon the facts and
the circumstances described in the case;
(3) Reasonableness—the extent to which
the recommendation represents an at-
tempt to match the severity of the
punishment to the seriousness of the
offense; and (4) Fairness—the extent to
which the recommendation reflects a
concern for all parties involved. These
four criteria were employed in both cases
because they seemed to represent the
most appropriate and valid standards for
evaluating group recommendations to
the two cases used in the study.8
The three judges in each set indepen-
dently rated the 25 group recommenda-
tions presented to them using the follow-
ing four scales:
Inappropriate 12 3 4 5 6 7 Appropriate
Warranted 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unwarranted
Unreasonable 12 3 4 5 6 7 Reasonable
Fair 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unfair
Each recommendation thus received four
separate ratings—one for each of the
four evaluative criteria employed in the
study. Estimates of interrater reliability
using Ebel's intraclass correlation proce-
dure were: .74 {Appropriateness scale);
8
This assumption was supported by information
which we received from talking with members of the
University's "Appeals Board"—a committee which lis-
tens to academic violations, as well as the University's
"Student Housing Council"—a committee which listens
to violations occurring within the University's dormito-
ries. Both committees indicated that they try to adminis-
ter penalties which are consistent with all of our four
criteria, plus are clearly within the legal bounds of the
University.
9
Robert L. Ebel, "Estimation of the Reliability of
Ratings," Psychometrika, 16 (1951), 407-24.
 366 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
.58 (Warrantedness scale); .74 (Reason-
ableness scale); and .75 (Fairness scale).
Identifying "effective" and "ineffec-
tive" groups. The judges' ratings of the
various group recommendations served
as the basis for identifying the "effective"
and "ineffective" groups whose discus-
sions were to be analyzed in the study.
Because all four evaluation criteria were
assumed to be of relatively equal impor-
tance in evaluating the overall quality of
the group recommendations, no at-
tempt was made to weight the criteria
during or after the evaluation process.
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
Instead, an "effective" group was opera-
tionally defined as a group whose recom-
mendation received a rating of at least a
"6" on all four criteria by all three judges
while an "ineffective" group was opera-
tionally defined as a group whose recom-
mendation received a rating of no higher
than a " 2 " on all four criteria by all three
judges.,n In all, six groups were identi-
fied as "effective" and five were identi-
fied as "ineffective" using those selection
standards. Their videotaped discussions
were thus retained for further analysis.
Analysis of the Group Discussions
Having obtained samples of "effec-
tive" and "ineffective" decision-making
groups, the next phase of the study called
for the systematic analysis of the video-
taped discussions associated with those
"effective" and "ineffective" groups.
Before attempting to analyze the video-
taped discussions, however, we first had
to decide how to go about observing the
discussions. The principal decision to be
made was whether to take a "structured"
10
See footnote 3 for justification.
11
This selection procedure was employed for three
reasons: (1) No weighting was employed in evaluating
the recommendations so that it was necessary to make
certain that we selected recommendations whose ratings
on each criterion were approximately equal; (2) The
selection procedure compensated for inherent "error" in
the judges' evaluation of the recommendations; and (3)
It allowed us to test for "maximum differences" between
the two sets of groups.
or "unstructured" approach—that is,
whether to analyze the discussions
through the use of a set of pre-deter-
mined observational categories,12 or to
analyze the discussions in a more "free-
formed" manner without the aid of any
pre-determined observational categories.
We decided to opt for the latter
approach.
Justification for the method. While we
fully recognized the advantages of
employing a more "structured" format
(for example, it could substantially
improve the consistency and reliability of
our observations), we felt that there were
two compelling reasons why an "un-
structured" format was more appropri-
ate in this particular study. First, due to
the exploratory nature of the investiga-
tion, we wanted to analyze the discus-
sions as broadly and as deeply as possible
so as not to overlook any differences
between the communication within the
"effective" and "ineffective" groups
which might have accounted for the dif-
ferences in the quality of their decisions.
We felt that the use of pre-determined
categories might restrict our analysis of
the discussions to only those aspects
which were encompassed within our
observational categories. Second, and
perhaps more importantly, we were
reluctant to employ a "structured"
approach because we felt that we did not
possess a valid theoretical foundation
from which to select our observational
categories.13 We were concerned that the
atheoretical selection of observational
12
See Nancy H. Harper and Lawrence R. Askling,
"Group Communication and Quality of Task Solution
in a Media Production Organization," Communication
Monographs, 47 (1980), 77-100, for a good example of
a study which employs a "structured" observation for-
mat. Even more structured approaches can be found by
examining those investigations (for example, Lands-
berger; Sorenson; Hirokawa, "A Comparative Analysis
of Communication Patterns," which employed the
method of interaction analysis.
12
See Hirokawa, "Group Communication and Prob-
lem-solving Effectiveness I" for an in-depth explication
of this problem.
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
categories might cause us to focus our
attention on aspects of the discussions
which were not especially useful in
understanding the relationship between
group communication and group deci-
sion-making performance.14
Procedures for analyzing the discus-
sions. To maintain as much rigor, consis-
tency, and reliability as possible in our
analysis of the group discussions, the
following procedures were followed:
1. First, two separate research
"teams" were established. Each team
was headed by one of the principal inves-
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
tigators and consisted of two additional
observers.15 These additional observers
were carefully instructed of the purpose
of the study, as well as the procedures
that would be employed in analyzing the
discussions.
2. Working independently of each
other,16 the two research teams began by
carefully observing and analyzing the
discussions associated with the six "ef-
fective" groups. Their objective in this
phase of the data-gathering process was
to identify all observable aspects of the
discussions which might have accounted
for the groups' high-quality decisions. In
order to maintain some degree of consis-
tency and rigor of observation and inter-
pretation, the members of each team
were told to employ the following obser-
vation procedures:
(a) Working independently of other members of
the team, they should observe and analyze one
videotape at a time, carefully noting the
occurrence of every instance of what Gouran
14
Hirokawa, "Group Communication and Problem-
solving Effectiveness I."
l5
The purpose of employing these two research teams
was obviously to insure some degree of reliability of
observation. As will be explained in the "procedures"
section of this manuscript, by reporting only those
observations which were independently reported by both
teams, we insured that our observations were at least
minimally reliable.
16
The members of each team worked together only in
observing the discussions; they recorded their observa-
tions independently of one another.
367
and Hirokawa refer to as "promotive
influences"—that is, communicative utter-
ances which function to help the group arrive
at a high-quality decision.17 In recording their
observations, they were told to note, with as
much detail as possible, what the nature of the
promotive influence was, and approximately
when during the discussion it occurred,
(b) Once the members of the research team had
observed and analyzed all six videotaped dis-
cussions, they should meet as a team and
compare their respective observation notes. In
doing so, they should attempt to consolidate
their individual notes into one general list of
communication characteristics which ap-
peared to account for the decision-making
success of the six "effective" groups. In iden-
tifying these characteristics, they should
employ two criteria: (1) All three members of
the team had to agree that the promotive
influence actually occurred during the discus-
sion, as well as when it occurred during the
discussion; and (2) The promotive influence
had to be common to all six discussions.
3. Once the promotive influences
common to the six "effective" groups had
been identified by each research team,
each proceeded to observe and to analyze
the discussions associated with the five
"ineffective" groups. In doing so, their
objective was to determined whether any
of the promotive influences present in the
discussions of the six "effective" groups
could also be found in the discussions of
the "ineffective" groups. The procedures
that they followed in this phase of the
data-gathering process were virtually
identical to those followed in the pre-
vious phase, with the only difference
being that in this particular phase, the
comparison of individual observation
notes resulted in the elimination of com-
munication characteristics from the gen-
eral list prepared in the previous phase.
Specifically, whenever a promotive in-
fluence common to the "effective" groups
was also found in at least one of the
17
Dennis S. Gouran and Randy Y. Hirokawa, "The
Role of Communication in Decision-making Groups: A
Functional Perspective," in Communication in Transi-
tion, ed. Mary S. Mander (New York: Praeger, in
press).
 368 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
discussions associated with the "ineffec-
tive" groups, it was removed from the
general list of promotive influences. At
the end of this second phase of data
gathering, then, a set of communication
characteristics common only to the six
"effective" groups was identified. These
characteristics were assumed to be those
promotive influences which probably
accounted for the high quality of the
"effective" groups' decisions.
4. Once a list of promotive influences
common only to the set of "effective"
groups was established, the data-gather-
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
ing process was repeated (but also
reversed) for the five discussions asso-
ciated with the "ineffective" groups.
Specifically, the two teams observed and
analyzed the five discussions in an effort
to identify all observable aspects of the
discussions which might have accounted
for the groups' low-quality decisions.
Virtually the same procedures as those
employed in the first phase of the data-
gathering process (see 2a and b above)
were employed in this phase of the
research, with the only notable differ-
ence being that instead of noting the
occurrence of promotive influences, the
observers were told to note carefully the
occurrence of every instance of what
Gouran and Hirokawa refer to as "dis-
ruptive influences"—that is, communi-
cative utterances which function to
prevent the group from arriving at a
high-quality decision, or lead the group
toward a low-quality decision.18 In con-
solidating their individual observation
notes into a general list of communica-
tion characteristics which appeared to
account for the low-quality of the "inef-
fective" groups' decisions, the same crite-
ria were once again employed (see 2b
above)—namely, (1) All three members
of the team had to agree that the disrup-
tive influence actually occurred during
the discussion, as well as when it
18
Gouran and Hirokawa.
occurred during the discussion; and (2)
The disruptive influence had to be com-
mon to all five discussions.
5. After compiling the list of disrup-
tive influences common to the discussions
associated with the "ineffective" groups,
the research teams again proceeded to
"prune" their lists by observing and
analyzing the six discussions associated
with the "effective" groups. As in the
second phase of the research (see 3), the
objective of the research teams was to
determine whether any of the disruptive
influences found in the discussions of the
"ineffective" groups could also be found
in the discussions of the "effective"
groups. Once again, any communication
characteristic which was found in both
sets of discussions was removed from the
list of disruptive influences. At the end of
this fourth phase of the data-gathering
process, a set of communication charac-
teristics common only to the five "inef-
fective" group discussions was identified.
These characteristics were assumed to be
those disruptive influences which proba-
bly accounted for the low quality of the
"ineffective" groups' decisions.
6. Having established two separate
lists of communication characteristics—
one which contained those common to
the "effective" groups, and the other
which contained those common to the
"ineffective" groups—the leaders of the
two research teams (i.e., the principal
investigators) met to compare their
respective lists. The purpose of compar-
ing these lists was to consolidate them
into two general lists which represented
those promotive and disruptive in-
fluences mutually identified by both
teams. This enabled us to build in still
another internal check on the reliability
of our observations. At the end of this
fifth phase, then, two separate lists of
communication characteristics were es-
tablished: (1) a list of promotive
influences which both teams identified as
being common to the "effective" groups
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
only; and (2) a list of disruptive
influences which both teams identified as
being common to the "ineffective"
groups only.
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
Although it was found that the "effec-
tive" and "ineffective" groups were
characterized by a number of common
communication characteristics,19 our ob-
servations also revealed several commu-
nication characteristics which appeared
to distinguish the two sets of groups. In
fact, we discovered that the promotive
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
influences common to the "effective"
groups appeared to be almost mirror-
opposites of the disruptive influences
which were common only to the "ineffec-
tive" groups. These differences can be
summarized in terms of the following
four "propositions":
Proposition 1: The quality of a group's
decision may be dependent upon the
manner in which group members exam-
ine and evaluate the validity oj opinions
and assumptions introduced into the dis-
cussion by fellow members. This study
shows that those groups which arrived at
a high-quality decision tended carefully
and rigorously to examine and evaluate
the validity of opinions and assumptions
generated by fellow group members
while groups which arrived at low-qual-
ity decisions tended to gloss over opinions
and assumptions and accepted them
without first considering their validity.
In the case of the "effective" groups,
opinions and assumptions were seldom
accepted without some preceding discus-
sion, clarification, and/or modification.
Assumptions, while minimal in most of
the "effective" groups' discussions,
19
For example, we discovered that both sets of groups
were characterized by such features as: (1) Relatively
equal participation among group members; (2)
Attempts to clarify and identify pertinent facts and
information; (3) Attempts to generate a set of alternative
options; and (4) Attempts to use pre-established criteria
to evaluate alternative options.
369
tended to be especially scrutinized by the
members of those groups. When
assumptions were advanced by group
members, others in the group would
typically attempt to ascertain the basis or
substantiation for those assumptions.
Perhaps the following brief excerpt from
the discussion of one of the "effective"
groups will help to illustrate this point:
A: I think he should fail the course . . .
B: Really? Why? Don't you think that's too
har...
A: Harsh? Not really . . . look, he knew what he
was doing when he plagiarized the essay . . .
C: What makes you think that? Does it say that
in here . . . let's see . . . I don't remember
reading t h a t . . . did you?
B: No . . . I don't think so . . .
A: Its not in the case study... I just assumed that
he knew what he was doing based on his
conversation with the prof . . . it just seemed
like he knew all along what he was doing . . .
C: Here it i s . . . h u m m . . . yeah, it does seem like
he knew he was plagiarizing . . . like when he
says, "You said that its possible for two or
more authors to share the same viewpoints on
an issue, right? Well, Buckley and I happened
to share the same views and he just happened
to say them in the same way that I would have
said them."
B: " . . . would have said them" is the key terms,
huh?
A: Right . . . it just sounds to me like he knew
what he was doing . . . you know, he deliber-
ately copied parts of Buckley's editorial...
B: It does seem like i t . . . right...
In this excerpt, then, we can clearly see
how the group members (B and C)
immediately challenge (or at least ques-
tion) the validity of A's assumption that
the student "knew what he was doing
when he plagiarized the essay." It was
our observation that this type of ques-
tioning and challenging of opinions and
assumptions was quite prevalent in the
discussions of the six "effective" groups.
In short, members of those groups tended
to assess carefully the validity of most of
the assumptions and opinions introduced
by group members and appeared to
accept only those assumptions and opin-
ions which appeared to them to be valid.
 370 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
In the case of the "ineffective" groups,
however, the members were observed
rarely to challenge or to discuss the
validity of opinions and assumptions
introduced into the discussion. In fact, it
was our observation that the members of
those groups often had a difficult time
distinguishing between "facts" (i.e.,
information directly presented in the
case study) and "non-facts" (i.e., opin-
ions, assumptions, and inferences which
go beyond what is directly presented in
the case study). In numerous instances,
we observed group members accepting
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
opinions and assumptions as if they were
facts without ever stopping to question
the validity of those opinions and
assumptions. For example, consider the
following excerpt taken from the discus-
sion of one of the "ineffective" groups:
A: Well, let's see, we could recommend anything
from letting him off to kicking him out of
school...
B: Kicking him out is unreasonable, don't you
think?
C: Yeah, no way that would be justified . . . this
is his first offense . . . right?
B: U h . . .
C: Has to be, I mean, he's a journalism student,
right? They must write a lot of papers, and
since the student had never been caught pla-
giarizing before, this had to be the first time he
did i t . . .
A: O.K.... so kicking him out of school is o u t . . .
also failing him in the course would be out,
too? Huh?
B: Has to be . . . if its his first offense and a l l . . .
In this brief excerpt we can see an
important difference between how this
"ineffective" group dealt with the
assumption introduced by C ("this is his
first offense"), as compared to how the
"effective" groups dealt with similar
types of assumptions and opinions. Spe-
cifically, the members of this "ineffec-
tive" group appeared to accept the
assumption introduced by C without
ever stopping to question or challenge its
validity. They appeared to accept the
assumption (and its accompanying sub-
stantiation—which in itself, was a fur-
ther assumption) as if they were facts
presented in the case. This appeared to
be the case with all of the discussions
associated with the five "ineffective"
groups.
In summary, then, it was our observa-
tion that one of the distinguishing char-
acteristics between the discussions of the
"effective" and "ineffective" groups was
the manner in which they dealt with
opinions and assumptions introduced
into the discussion by fellow group mem-
bers. Group members in the "effective"
groups tended constantly to challenge
and to question the validity of assump-
tions and opinions before accepting them
while group members in the "ineffec-
tive" groups tended to accept assump-
tions and opinions without stopping to
question or to challenge their validity.
Proposition 2: The quality of a group's
decision may be dependent upon the
manner in which group members evalu-
ate alternative choices. A second commu-
nication characteristic which appeared to
distinguish the "effective" from the
"ineffective" groups concerns the man-
ner in which those two sets of groups
evaluated alternative courses of action.
The study found that although both the
"effective" and "ineffective" groups
were characterized by attempts to gener-
ate alternative courses of action and to
evaluate those alternatives in light of
pre-established criteria,20 the evaluation
process followed by the "effective"
groups tended to be far more thorough
and rigorous than the evaluation proce-
dures employed by the "ineffective"
groups.
In the case of the "effective" groups,
20
The groups were told before they began that their
recommendation would be evaluated by "experts" using
four criteria: appropriateness, warrantedness, reasona-
bleness, and fairness. Moreover, each criterion was
carefully explained to the groups so that they knew
exactly what their recommendation would have to meet
as far as standards were concerned.
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
the members tended to test carefully each
alternative choice to determine whether
it indeed met the pre-established evalua-
tion criteria (i.e., appropriate, fair, war-
ranted, and reasonable). They were
observed to pay close attention to the
consequences of each alternative recom-
mendation (i.e., what would likely hap-
pen if such an action were taken) and
used those speculations to assess the
desirability of each alternative in light of
the four pre-established criteria.
Members of the "ineffective" groups,
on the other hand, appeared to test each
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
alternative against the four pre-estab-
lished criteria in almost a perfunctory
manner—that is to say, they appeared to
"go through the motions" in determining
whether each alternative met (or failed to
meet) the four evaluation criteria. Mem-
bers of the "ineffective" groups rarely
discussed the consequences of their rec-
ommendations, and seldom (if ever)
stopped to consider whether such an
alternative was indeed appropriate, war-
ranted, reasonable, and fair given the
facts and circumstances presented in the
case studies. In most instances, members
of the "ineffective" groups would simply
ask each other whether the recommenda-
tion met each of the four criteria and
would simply respond to each question
with a simple "yes" or "no" response.
To illustrate briefly the difference
between the manner in which the "effec-
tive" and "ineffective" groups tended to
evaluate alternative choices, let us com-
pare the discussions associated with an
"effective" and an "ineffective" group.21
Both groups happened to be given the
"plagiarism" case study and considered,
as one of their alternatives, giving the
student a failing grade in the course.
The "effective" group carefully exam-
ined this alternative to determine
21
Due to the length of the transcriptions necessary to
illustrate this difference, it is necessary to summarize
them.
371
whether it indeed satisfied the four
established criteria. After a considerable
amount of discussion, they concluded
that it was probably appropriate and
warranted because the student did pla-
giarize, and plagiarism is one of the more
serious "academic offenses" that can be
committed by a student, and therefore,
deserves a severe punishment. In testing
the alternative to see if it was reasonable
and fair, however, the group recognized
certain mitigating circumstances in the
case (e.g., the student had a reputation of
being a "good" student; the assignment,
he plagiarized on was not a major deter-
minant of the course grade), and decided
that such an action did not appear to be
especially reasonable or fair to the stu-
dent. The group thus decided that "fail-
ing the student in the course" did not
fully satisfy all of the four established
criteria, and they consequently refrained
from selecting it as their final choice.
In the case of the "ineffective" group,
however, the members proceeded to test
this alternative against the four estab-
lished criteria in a superficial manner.
That is to say, they never made an
attempt to analyze carefully the recom-
mendation to determine whether it was
indeed appropriate, warranted, reason-
able, and fair. The following brief
excerpt clearly illustrates this point:
C: What about failing him in the course? Let's
see, does it meet the four criteria?
A: Is it appropriate?
B: Yeah . . . its appropriate . . .
A: Warranted?
B: Yeah . . . if its appropriate, it has to be
warranted, too.
A: Reasonable?
C: I would think so . . . he did plagiarize . . .
B: Yeah . . . r i g h t . . .
A: Fair?
B: I think its fair... he did admit to cheating . . .
and its better than kicking him out, you know,
of the university or major, right?
A: Yeah . . . O.K. . . . so "failing him in the
course" seems to meet all the criteria, huh?
B: Yep . . . looks good . . . let's go with it.
 372 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
C: Sounds good to me . . .
A: That's it, then . . . fail him it is.
In the case of this group, they evaluated
the recommendation on all four criteria
in a matter of a few minutes, never really
stopping to discuss whether the recom-
mendation truly met the four established
criteria. Not surprisingly, then, this
"ineffective" group never detected some
of the problems which the "effective"
group detected concerning this recom-
mendation. This is perhaps an important
reason why this particular "ineffective"
group arrived at a less-than-ideal solu-
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
tion to the problem.
Proposition 3: The quality of a group's
decision may be dependent upon the
accuracy of the premises which serve as
the basis for the group's decision. This
"proposition" represents one of the
important insights of this study. We
found that groups which arrived at a
high-quality decision tended to base
their final choice on facts, assumptions,
and inferences which, from our perspec-
tive, appeared to be quite reasonable and
accurate while groups which arrived at a
low-quality decision tended to base their
final decision on facts, assumptions, and
inferences which, from our perspective,
appeared to be inaccurate or highly
questionable.
Perhaps a specific example drawn
from the discussions of several "effec-
tive" and "ineffective" groups will clar-
ify this difference. In several of the "ef-
fective" groups, the members reached the
decision that the co-ed who damaged her
roommate's stereo should (1) be required
to pay for the repair of the stereo; (2) be
reassigned to a single room or a new
roommate; and (3) be put on temporary
probation for one semester during which
time any subsequent violations would
result in her immediate dismissal from
the dorm system. These groups all based
their decision on the same premises:
1. The facts indicated that the co-ed did deliber-
ately damage her roommate's stereo.
2. The co-ed's actions appeared to be triggered by
her roommate's failure to play the stereo at a
low volume while the co-ed tried to study but
appeared to stem from a long-standing conflict
between the two women.
3. The conflict appeared to be unresolvable
because it stemmed from personality differ-
ences.
4. The co-ed's actions, regardless of the cause,
should not be tolerated or condoned.
Clearly, these decisional premises all
appear to be quite reasonable and, in
fact, are based directly on information
presented in the narrative to the case
study. The groups' decision, then, was
essentially based upon facts and assump-
tions which appeared to be valid and
well-grounded.
Contrast this, however, to the case of
several of the "ineffective" groups. In
these groups, the members agreed that
the best recommendation was to evict the
co-ed from the University dormitory sys-
tem. Their decision was based upon the
following premises:
1. The co-ed admitted to deliberately damaging
her roommate's stereo.
2. The co-ed appeared to be mentally unstable
and prone to violent acts, particularly when
provoked—only such an unstable person
would deliberately damage her roommate's
stereo just because she was playing it too
loudly.
3. Such an unstable and violent person could
engage in a more violent act to someone else,
possibly causing serious injury or death.
4. The University was obligated to remove such
"dangerous" residents from the dorm system
for the protection of the rest of the residents.
In the case of these "ineffective" groups,
the decision to evict the co-ed was based
primarily on the assumption that she
was mentally unstable and prone to vio-
lence. While we have no way of knowing
whether this assumption is indeed valid,
we do know that nothing was said in the
case study which even remotely sug-
gested that the co-ed was mentally unsta-
ble or prone to violence. That assump-
tion was inferred from the fact that she
admitted to deliberately damaging her
roommate's stereo because the roommate
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
refused to turn the volume down. The
point being made, then, is that the prem-
ises which served as the basis for these
groups' decision to evict the student were
not as well-grounded in the facts of the
case as those employed by the members
of the "effective" groups.
Proposition 4: The quality of a group's
decision may be dependent upon the
nature of influence exerted by influential
members of the group. A fourth commu-
nication characteristic which appeared to
distinguish the "effective" from the
"ineffective" groups concerned the na-
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
ture of the impact of the influential
group members. This study found that
every group tended to possess a member
(or members) who somehow possessed
the ability to influence effectively the line
of thinking and discussion of the group.
We found, however, that within each of
the six "effective" groups, the influential
members tended to exert a positive, facil-
itative influence on their respective
groups by guiding them toward a high-
quality decision while in the case of the
five "ineffective" groups, these influen-
tial members tended to exert a negative,
inhibitive influence on their respective
groups by preventing them from moving
toward a high-quality decision.
Specifically, it was our observation
that the influential members of the "ef-
fective" groups tended to facilitate the
decision-making process by asking ap-
propriate questions, introducing or
pointing out important information and
insights, challenging and persuading the
group to reject unwarranted or fallacious
assumptions and arguments, clarifying
information presented in the case stud-
ies, and/or keeping the group from
digressing on to irrelevant discussion
tangents. For example, in one of the
"effective" groups, an older male (in his
late 30's or early 40's) who had never
lived in a university dormitory, asked the
group a number of pertinent questions
regarding the nature of dormitory liv-
ing—e.g., What were "quiet hours?"
373
How were "quiet hours" enforced?
What were the duties and responsibili-
ties of a resident assistant? How does the
University typically discipline various
types of "offenders?" By asking these
questions, he succeeded in getting the
group to address carefully key facts and
issues which appeared to help them to
arrive at a high-quality decision. Simi-
larly, in the case of another "effective"
group, a female member who was cur-
rently a resident assistant in one of the
University's dormitories provided the
group with valuable information which
was not available in the narrative pre-
sented to the group. For example, she
informed the group of the specific duties
and responsibilities of a resident assis-
tant, and further explained University
dormitory policies and regulations. In
addition, she also provided her group
with a clear understanding of what could
"legally" be done to a dormitory resident
who committed an offense similar to the
one in the case study. In providing the
group with these "extra" bits of informa-
tion, she clearly helped them to arrive at
a better decision than they might have
without her.
On the other hand, it was our observa-
tion that influential members of the
"ineffective" groups tended to hinder the
decision-making process by introducing
and getting the group to accept unwar-
ranted and/or erroneous assumptions
and arguments, getting the group to
misinterpret information presented in
the case studies, introducing and getting
the group to accept inferior and some-
times ridiculous ideas and suggestions,
and/or leading the group on to irrelevant
discussion tangents. For example, in one
of the "ineffective" groups, a female
member who had been a resident assis-
tant in the past, used her perceived
"credibility" to get her group to accept a
number of unwarranted assumptions
and inferences—e.g., the co-ed has
obvious emotional and psychological
problems; she is mentally unstable; she is
 374 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

likely to commit such destructive acts (or exert a far less positive influence on their
worse ones) again if she is allowed to groups than those influential members in
remain in the dormitory; her emotional the "effective" groups. This difference
problems probably stem from a poor may well have been an important reason
attitude toward school and an unhappy for the differences in the quality of their
family life where she was "spoiled rot- group decisions.
ten" by her parents. Similarly, in
another "ineffective" group, one of the PRELIMINARY VERIFICATION OF
members appeared to succeed in getting FINDINGS
the group to sympathize with the student Rationale
who had been caught plagiarizing. He
did so by creating some incredibly far- Although the internal checks on rigor
fetched and unbelievable "scenarios" to and reliability that we employed in the
explain why the student plagiarized the study made us reasonably confident in
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015

essay. For instance, he suggested to the the validity of our observations, the sub-
group that the student could have created jective nature of our data collection made
the exact same essay just by coincidence. us wonder whether our findings might
He supported this suggestion with a be a reflection of what we "wanted to
reference to an episode of Star Trek in see" in the group discussions. From our
which a "parallel universe" was discov- perspective, then, we believed that the
ered where two of the exact same things validity of our findings could be
existed. In another "scenario," he sug- enhanced if we were able to verify objec-
gested that the student could have talked tively our observations. The present sec-
with the author of the essay, and the tion thus reports a preliminary attempt
author—William F. Buckley—might to provide such verification.
have used the student's ideas on the
subject so that their two essays came out Procedures
identically alike. In getting the group to Method. In trying to decide how to
accept these possible "explanations," verify our observations, we reasoned that
this member actually succeeded in con- if knowledgeable observers, who were
vincing the group that the student really basically uninformed of the purpose as
did not plagiarize the essay. In so doing, well as the findings of the study, were to
he successfully led them away from a report observations similar to ours, then
high-quality decision. In still another this would constitute at least partial ver-
"ineffective" group, a male member in ification for the validity of our observa-
his late 20's or early 30's took a hard tions. We thus decided to convert our
stand against the co-ed who damaged her four "propositions" into four seven-point
roommate's stereo. He succeeded in con- rating scales, and then have a number of
vincing the group that it was a very knowledgeable, though naive, observers
serious crime, and if the co-ed were utilize those scales to rate the quality of
allowed to remain in the dormitory, she the 11 group discussions. We reasoned
would probably commit even more seri- that if our observations were valid, then
ous and dangerous crimes like hurting or the raters should rate the discussions in a
killing someone. His suggestions were manner consistent with the predictions of
accepted by the group and served as the our four "propositions"—i.e., the "effec-
basis for proposing a severe punishment tive" groups would be rated as possessing
for the co-ed. In short, then, it was our more of the given communication char-
observation that the influential members acteristic than the "ineffective" groups.
of the "ineffective" groups tended to The four rating scales that we employed
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
were'as follows:
1. To what extent was this discussion character-
ized by attempts to carefully evaluate the valid-
ity of opinions and assumptions advanced by
group members? (Proposition 1)
Almost none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quite a lot
2. To what extent was this discussion character-
ized by attempts to carefully determine
whether each alternative choice actually satis-
fied the established evaluation criteria? (Prop-
osition 2)
Almost none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quite a lot
3. To what extent were the premises which
served as the basis for this group's decision
"grounded" in facts and information presented
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
directly in the case study? (Proposition 3)
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost always
4. What was the predominant nature of influence
exerted by the most dominant member(s) of
this group? (Proposition 4)
Generally . 2 3 4 5 6 7 Generally
negative positive
Training of raters. Five undergrad-
uate students from an advanced course in
small group communication theory at the
authors' university served as the raters
for the verification phase of this study.
These students were selected because
they were among the top students in the
class at the time and were thus assumed
to possess the knowledge and ability to
function as competent raters. In order to
insure their accurate evaluation of the 11
group discussions, however, the raters
were first trained to employ the four
rating scales. This training consisted of a
careful explanation of the meaning of
each rating scale—that is, what each
question was asking, as well as what
each "anchoring term" meant. Only
after we were reasonably certain that the
raters understood what they were sup-
posed to do did we allow them to observe
and to rate the 11 group discussions.
Procedures for rating the discussions.
The five raters received the 11 video-
taped group discussions in a random
order. Working independently, each
rater observed each discussion twice.
During the first observation, raters were
375
instructed to note (1) all instances in
which group members attempted to eval-
uate the validity of opinions and assump-
tions advanced by other group members;
(2) all instances in which group mem-
bers attempted to determine whether an
alternative choice actually satisfied the
four established evaluation criteria; (3)
whether the premises which appeared to
serve as the basis for the group's decision
were based upon facts and information
presented directly in the case study; and
(4) the nature of influence exerted by
influential (or dominant) members of the
group. After viewing the videotape once,
they were instructed to view it a second
time before completing the four rating
scales. In this second viewing, they were
told to check their notes to verify their
accuracy. These procedures, though
somewhat laborious, proved to be quite
effective judging from the relatively high
interrater reliability estimates, as deter-
mined by Ebel's intraclass correlation
procedure:22 .80 (Scale 1), .83 (Scale 2),
.76 (Scale 3), and .92 (Scale 4).
Results
The results of the five raters' evalua-
tion of the 11 group discussions are
summarized in Table 1. The data in the
table clearly indicate that significant dif-
ferences do appear to exist between the
discussions associated with the "effec-
tive" and "ineffective" groups. More-
over, these differences are clearly in the
direction of the predictions of our four
"propositions." In particular, the
greatest differences in ratings appeared
to concern (1) attempts to evaluate opin-
ions and assumptions (t = 8.30; p < .05);
(2) the extent to which decisional prem-
ises are "grounded" in the facts and
information presented in the case study
(t = 8.37; p < .05); and (3) the nature of
influence exerted by influential members
of the group (/ = 11.63; p < .05). In
22
Ebel.
 376 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RATINGS FOR GROUP DISCUSSIONS

SCALE 1
"Attempts to Evaluate Opinions/Assumptions"
E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 AVE 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 AVE /-SCORE
6.0 5.2 6.4 5.2 5.6 6:8 5.9 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.2 2.6 2.0 8.30
SCALE 2
"Attempts to Evaluate Alternative Choices"
E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 AVE 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 AVE /-SCORE
5.4 5.4 6.6 5.8 5.6 6.6 5.9 3.2 2.2 1.2 1.0 2.8 2.1 6.91
SCALE 3
"Validity of Decisional Premises"
E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 AVE 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 AVE /-SCORE
5.2 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.6 6.2 5.6 2.2 2.6 1.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 8.37
SCALE 4
"Nature of Influence"
E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 AVE 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 AVE /-SCORE
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015

6.6 6.2 6.4 6.0 6.2 6.8 6.4 1.6 1.4 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.7 11.63

short, the results of the five raters' evalu-
ations of the group discussions appeared
to support our qualitative analysis of the
same discussions and appeared to pro-
vide at least partial verification for our
observations.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to
analyze systematically the nature and
content of interaction within a number of
"effective" and "ineffective" decision-
making groups in an effort to identify
consistent differences which might ac-
count for the differences in the quality of
their group decisions. The ultimate
objective of this investigation was to
obtain information which would help us
to understand better the nature of the
relationship between group communica-
tion and quality of group decision mak-
ing. In regards to this objective, the study
found that although the discussions of
"effective" and "ineffective" groups
appear to be characterized by a number
of similarities, they can be distinguished
on the basis of at least four communica-
tion-related characteristics: (1) The
manner in which the groups examined
opinions and assumptions advanced by
group members; (2) The manner in
which the groups evaluated alternative
choices; (3) The nature of decisional
premises; and (4) The nature of
influence exerted by influential members
of the group.
Although it may be a bit premature to
identify these four communication char-
acteristics as definite causal determi-
nants of the quality of group decisions, it
seems reasonable (and useful) to specu-
late why and how these characteristics
might be related to the quality of group
decisions.
1. The manner in which group mem-
bers attempt to evaluate the validity of
opinions and assumptions advanced by
fellow members. This study found that
groups which arrived at a high-quality
decision tended to examine carefully and
rigorously the validity of opinions and
assumptions advanced by fellow mem-
bers while groups which arrived at low-
quality decisions tended to "gloss" over
opinions and assumptions and tended to
accept them without carefully consider-
ing their validity. The explanation for
this observed difference appears quite
obvious. As Nobel laureate Herbert A.
Simon points out in his now-classic book,
Administrative Behavior, decision mak-
ers typically base their decisions upon
what they believe to be "true" about the
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
world as they know it.23 For example,
decision makers will base their choice
upon what they believe to be the nature
of the problem, or what they believe to be
the cause(s) of the problem. Similarly,
decision makers will typically base their
decision upon what they believe to be the
direct consequences associated with the
selection of various options. Simon con-
tends that in many instances, what the
group believes to be true is, in fact, based
upon existing information which has
been established to be valid. However, he
points out that there are many instances
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
where complete or verified information
is either unavailable or nonexistent. In
these instances, decision makers are
forced to formulate assumptions and
speculations regarding what might be
true about the particular situation in
question. To the extent that these
assumptions and speculations are accu-
rate, the decision makers are likely to be
in a favorable position to make "good"
choices while the acceptance or formula-
tion of inaccurate assumptions and spec-
ulations tends to place the decision mak-
ers in an unfavorable position to make
"good" decisions.24 Applying Simon's
analysis to the groups in this study, then,
it is not difficult to understand why
quality of group decisions appeared to be
related to group members' efforts to
assess the validity of assumptions and
opinions advanced by fellow members.
Quite simply, when the members of a
group carefully examine the validity of
assumptions and opinions, they greatly
increase their chances of detecting and
rejecting invalid or questionable as-
sumptions and opinions. However, when
groups simply gloss over such opinions
and assumptions and accept (or reject)
them with only a minimum amount of
23
Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior: A
Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative
Organization, 3rd ed. (New York: The Free Press,
1976).
24
Simon.
377
discussion, then their chances of detect-
ing and rejecting invalid assumptions
tends to be greatly reduced. This is pre-
cisely what appeared to happen in the
case of the groups examined in this
study. Those which carefully examined
assumptions and opinions tended to
detect and reject invalid or unwarranted
assumptions while those which did not
carefully examine such opinions and
assumptions tended to accept many more
invalid and unwarranted assumptions.
Not surprisingly, those groups which
accepted invalid assumptions tended to
arrive at lower-quality decisions than
those which did not accept invalid
assumptions.
2. The manner in which group mem-
bers attempt to evaluate alternative
choices in light of established criteria.
This study also discovered that groups
which arrived at a high-quality decision
tended to evaluate carefully and rigor-
ously their alternative choices in light of
the established evaluation criteria while
groups which failed to arrive at high-
quality decisions did not make a con-
scientious attempt to determine whether
their alternative choices met their estab-
lished criteria. Once again, the explana-
tion for this observed difference is fairly
obvious. Specifically, when a group care-
fully and thoroughly examines each
alternative choice to determine whether
it actually meets the criteria for a "good"
decision, it greatly increases its chances
of detecting "flaws" or problems with a
given alternative. However, when a
group tests alternatives against estab-
lished criteria in a haphazard or per-
functory manner, "flaws" and problems
which are not blatantly obvious may go
completely undetected by the members of
that group. As a consequence, such a
group may end up selecting an alterna-
tive which is less desirable than another
simply because they did not discover that
the selected alternative did not fully meet
the criteria for a "good" recommenda-
 378 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

tion. In short, then, when a group care- they have accepted to be true. Thus
fully evaluates each alternative choice, it when you ask members of a group why
tends to possess a better basis for select- they selected that particular choice over
ing a choice from among those alterna- other available options, they will typi-
tives because its members are able to cally justify their choice by arguing that
recognize the extent to which each alter- the facts, assumptions, and/or inferences
native choice meets (or fails to meet) the that they hold to be true dictate the
criteria for a "good" selection. On the selection of that choice over other avail-
other hand, when a group does not care- able choices. In short, the facts, assump-
fully evaluate its alternative choices, tions, and/or inferences that group
selection of an alternative from among members hold to be true (in addition to
those choices may not be based upon personal values that they may possess)
"complete" information—that is, a com- serve as the premises upon which deci-
plete understanding of the extent to sions are made. As Tompkins and
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015

which each choice meets (or fails to meet) Cheney suggest, these premises are often
the criteria for a "good" selection. arranged in the form of "enthy-
3. The nature of the decisional prem- memes"—that is, the choice that is
ises employed by the group in arriving at selected is the "conclusion" that follows
a decision. We discovered that groups from certain existing premises which are
which arrived at a high-quality decision arranged in the form of logical 25
(though
tended to base their decisions on facts, often implicit) syllogisms.
assumptions, and inferences which ap- Given this understanding of the role of
peared to be "grounded" in the facts and facts, assumptions, and inferences in the
information presented directly in the group decision-making process, it is not
case studies while groups which arrived difficult to understand why those groups
at a low-quality decision tended to base which arrived at a high-quality decision
their decisions on facts, assumptions, and appeared to be characterized by premises
inferences which were inaccurate and/or "grounded" in established facts and
highly questionable and were not information while groups which failed to
"grounded" in the information presented arrive at high-quality decisions generally
in the case studies. In order to under- were not characterized by premises
stand why this difference was observed, which were "grounded" in the facts and
it is perhaps necessary to understand the information presented in the case stud-
role that facts, assumptions, and infer- ies. Quite simply, if the facts, assump-
ences play in the group decision making tions, and inferences which a group bases
process. As we indicated previously in its decision on are, in fact, accurate and
discussing why quality of group deci- valid, then that group increases its
sions may be related to the manner in chances of logically arriving at a suitable
which groups evaluate opinions and decision. On the other hand, if the facts,
assumptions, the "information" (i.e., assumptions, and inferences which serve
facts, assumptions, and inferences) that a as the basis for the group's decision are
group possesses generally serves as the not valid and accurate, then there is a
basis for their choice making. Generally good chance that the group will fail to
speaking, when a group decides to select arrive at a suitable decision—even
a particular alternative choice over other
available options, they will typically do 25
Phillip K. Tompkins and George Cheney, "Unob-
so because they believe that such a choice trusive Control, Decision Making, and Communication
logically follows from certain facts, in Contemporary Organizations," Speech Communica-
assumptions, and/or inferences which tion 1982.
Association Annual Meeting, Louisville, KY, Nov.
 GROUP DECISION MAKING
though that choice may have been
arrived at through logical means.
4. The nature of influence exerted by
influential member(s) of the groups. We
discovered that every group examined in
this study tended to possess a member (or
members) who somehow possessed the
ability to influence successfully the line
of thinking and discussion of the group.
It was our observation that when these
influential member(s) exerted a positive,
facilitative influence on the group (that
is, he/she "pushed" the group toward a
high-quality decision), the group tended
Downloaded by [Oregon State University] at 22:00 08 January 2015
to arrive at a higher-quality decision
than when those influential member(s)
exerted a negative, inhibitive influence
on the group (that is, he/she "pre-
vented" the group from moving toward a
high-quality decision).
This observed difference is perhaps
the easiest observation to explain.
Simply stated, it seems obvious that the
quality of a group's decision will inevi-
tably be dependent upon the influence of
dominant group members. To be sure,
these influential members are likely to
convince the group to accept certain
information (i.e., facts, assumptions,
inferences) as being true, and then are
likely to convince the group to accept
certain alternatives over others—often
justifying those choices on the basis of the
"facts" that he/she has gotten the group
to accept. Given this influence over the
group's decision-making process, it is
certainly not difficult to understand that
when influential group member(s) ask
appropriate questions, challenge and
defeat invalid assumptions, clarify infor-
mation, or keep the group from going off
on irrelevant tangents, they are likely to
be responsible for getting the group to
arrive at a high-quality decision. Simi-
larly, it is not difficult to understand that
when influential group members con-
379
vince the group to accept invalid facts
and assumptions, introduce poor ideas
and suggestions, lead the group to misin-
terpret information presented to them, or
lead the group off on tangents and irrele-
vant discussions, they are often princi-
pally responsible for the poor quality of
the group's decision. In short, the quality
of a group's decision can often be
accounted for simply by identifying the
nature of influence exerted by the most
influential members of that group—gen-
erally speaking, when that influence is a
facilitative one, the group's decision is
likely to be of a high quality while if the
influence is a disruptive one, and there is
no one in the group to counteract that
disruptive influence, the group's decision
is likely to be of a low-quality.
CONCLUSION
It is important to understand the value
of this particular investigation. It is our
belief that it has succeeded in providing a
"grounded" understanding of some of
the important communication-based rea-
sons for "effective" and "ineffective"
group decision making. In doing so, it
has provided future researchers with a
basic foundation from which to begin a
systematic investigation of the relation-
ship between group communication and
quality of group decision making. The
value of this study, therefore, is in its
heuristic potential. That is, each of the
four "propositions" which grow out of
the findings of this study can be trans-
lated into empirically-testable hypoth-
eses. By systematically testing these
hypotheses under more controlled condi-
tions, then, it is hoped that we will begin
to obtain a better understanding of how
the group communication process func-
tions to affect the quality of group deci-
sions.