Conversation with Randy Hirokawa

After listening to the conversation between Griffin and Hirokawa I believe I had a better grasp on Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making. It is really basic. As Hirokawa stated, “the theory is designed to explain why groups make good or bad decisions” (Griffin, 2008). There are four functions which we have all read about but I found it interesting that Hirokawa mentions that there is one function that is more important than the other. That function is evaluation of positive and negative characteristics, yet there is no hierarchal order for the functions as long as all are implemented in the group setting.

When Hirokawa was asked how he can tell when a decision is good his reply was quite interesting. The fact that good and bad is subjective and that it should be determined by those that are impacted is a belief that I share with Hirokawa. I found it very important that Hirokawa stated, “the theory has at this point not been developed to the point where it properly accounts for … social factors” (Griffin, 2008). This statement made the theory make more sense to me. I kept questioning why factors such as conflict or culture were not mentioned.

References

Griffin, E. (2008). A first look at communication theory. In Conversations video [Randy Hirokawa - Functional perspective on group decision making]. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073385026/student_view0/conversations_video.html

Adaptive Structuration Theory

In chapter 18 Adaptive Structuration Theory of Marshall Scott Poole there is a part in the chapter that explains the use and abuse of rules and resources. The term appropriation which means the rules and resources used in a group setting have a history, they are used from another group. I just experienced this in a class where we had to form in groups. We don’t exactly know why we have formed in groups, obviously for a project but we don’t know what the project is. We had to write five norms for the group to follow. We have one member who is similar to the character of Josh in the text. From his guidance and experience with the professor we were able to agree on the five norms with a consensus. The irony of that one of our norms was that majority rules. Our group did this just like the example in the text. We will use the majority rules norm only if necessary. The one thing that Griffin writes that I did not consider when agreeing to this norm is if the majority rules norm is used it can create a strain in the group structure throughout our project, this would not be good.

Ethical Reflection: Habermas' Discourse Ethics

I found chapter 17 very interesting. The portion of the chapter called Ethical Reflection: Habermas’ Discourse Ethics discussed a very important variable in the functional perspective on group decision making. The fact that Habermas’s approach looks at culture in an after the fact manner discourages my belief of the group decision making perspective. Griffin (2008) states, “Habermas assumes that people within a given culture or community can pretty much agree on the good they want to accomplish, and overtime they’ve built up practical wisdom on how to achieve it” (p. 231). This statement seems true but the problem I see is when the verbal factor of communication in a group setting gets underway some cultures may not take the same venue in communicating.

I have experienced this first hand when I was co-chair of accreditation for student support services. We had weekly meetings and there were some members who would barely speak in the meetings. As co-chair I tried to encourage them to engage in the conversation because their ideas needed to be heard. I realize that their cultural background and upbringing were factors of their lack of participation. The only way that I could get them to engage is if I met with them one on one and directly asked them their opinion. I saw that it was hard for them to open up to me. The fact that I had to take them out of the group setting to communicate didn’t seem like we were functioning well as group. We did get the report done and I took with it experience and lessons that I will carry out throughout my career.