This article advances the general argument that the importance of communicationfor group decision-making performance and its impact on such performance are a function of three task characteristics: structure, information requirement, and evaluation demand. In developing this argument, the article identifies the task circumstances in which group communication can be expected to play a role in determining decision-making performance, as well as specifying how communication functions within those circumstances to affect decision efficacy. The article concludes with concrete directions and suggestionsforfuture research.

This study sought to obtain empirical data that either directly supports or refutes the "functional" perspective advanced by recent group decision-making theorists. Specifically, the study attempted to test the general claim that the group's satisfaction of critical task-achievement functions (or requisite conditions) is a better predictor of decision-making performance than the discussion procedures it employs in arriving at a decision. A total of 48 three-member groups were randomly assigned to one of four different discussion formats. The groups were trained to use their assigned format in arriving at a decision regarding a human relations case. Two-way ANOVA revealed no significant main effect f o r 'discussion format," but a significant main effect for 'batisfaction of requisite conditions. " No interaction effect was discovered. The findings thus offer strong support for the 'functional" perspective. Other analyses indicated that the satisfaction of certain requisite conditions may be more important than others in determining group decision-making success.Group decision-making scholars have traditionally assumed that the manner in which a group arrives at a decision plays an important role in determining whether it will arrive at a low-or high-quality decision. A number of authors, for example, have suggested that a group's ability to arrive at a high-quality decision is enhanced when it approaches its task or problem in an orderly and systematic manner (e.g., McBurney

The present study sought to determine whether "successful" problem-solving groups can be distinguished from "unsuccessful" problem-solving groups on the basis of the phases that characterize their problem-solving discussion. The results, while based on a limited sample of nine groups, provide strong evidence to indicate that no single uniform sequence of phases is necessarily associated with either "successful" or "unsucessful" group problem-solving. Rather, the study found that both "successful" and "unsuccessful" groups take their own unique "paths" to solving their problems, perhaps depending on the conditions and circumstances present at critical points in the problem-solving process. Interestingly, however, while the study discovered that there are several different sequences of phases associated with both "successful" and "unsuccessful" group problem-solving, a comparison of those different sequences revealed one general difference. Specifically, it was discovered that "successful" groups tend to begin their discussion by attempting to analyze the problem before attempting to search for a viable solution to it, while "unsuccessful" groups tend to begin the discussion by immediately attempting to search for a viable solution to the problem before attempting to analyze the problem.