Decision Development in Small Groups IV A Typology of Group Decision Paths

Abstract

This study develops a typology of decision paths through analysis of47 recorded decisions. The sample included a wide variety of decisions made by a variety of groups. Recent research has questioned the traditional assumption that all normal groups follow a set, unitary sequence of decision stages. Instead, this research suggests groups may follow multiple sequences in making decisions. Some writers have gone so far as to deny the existence of phases and propose alternative nonphasic formulations. This study sought to generate descriptive data that could hefp define the range of alternative decision paths and their properties, in the hope that this coufd helpsefect among the three perspectives on group decision development. The study developed new methods for mapping developmentalsequences that made itpossible to auoidoneofthemost troubling problems in prior research-the use of arbitrary time segments to definephases.The resulting typology had 11 different decision paths that fell into three main groups: unitary sequences, complex sequences, and solution-centeredsequences. Analysis of this typology supported the multiple sequence model, but also suggested a role for normative unitary models. The study also found that most groups have significant periods of disorganized activity. 0 ne of the most useful strategies for the study of group decision making focuses on the development of decisions over time. Over the past thirty-five years more than a hundred developmental studies have appeared, and scores more have invoked developmental assumptions. This interest reflects the widely accepted premise that we must study the process by which decisions are made if we are to understand and improve them (Fisher, 1975; McGrath 81 Altman, 1966).

Establishing joint decisions in a dyad

“…Researchers have, for example, suggested different sequential models of group-decision development (Bales and Strodtbeck, 1951;Dewey, 1910;Fisher, 1970;Poole and Roth, 1989) and considered the social influences that people exert on each other during their decision-making processes (Brodbeck et al, 2007;Festinger, 1954;Hall, 1971;Janis, 1989;Stasser and Stewart, 1992;Tyler and Lind, 1992). However, less attention has been paid to the exact interactional mechanisms that people use to turn -or not turn -proposals into joint decisions.…”

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

“…The empirical evidence from the laboratory and the field suggests that only a small portion of decisions in a given sample will approximate the unitary rational decision sequence (e.g. Jackson & Poole, 2003;Mintzberg et al, 1976;Nutt, 2008;Poole & Baldwin, 1996;Poole & Roth, 1989a). These results are important to the study of FM workshops because they correspond to studies of groups working without any form of decision support.…”

“…Weingart et al, 1996). In practice, deductive and inductive approaches are combined (see, for example, Bales, 1951;Poole & Roth, 1989a, 1989b. In Appendix 1 we provide a short overview of coding schemes that may be of interest to FM researchers.…”

“…The second approach indexes group behaviours associated with performing the specific task at hand. Coding schemes such as the Decision Functions Coding System (Poole & Roth, 1989a), and the Group Working Relationships Coding System (Poole, 1983a) are examples of task-specific systems: the former is designed to classify group decision making behaviours in terms of problem-oriented, solution-oriented, and process-oriented activities; the latter is designed to classify conflict management behaviours in terms of focused work, critical work, conflict related activities and integration.…”

Team design communication patterns in e-learning design and development

“…Solutions give rise to new problem constraints or methodological requirements in cycles of activity. The predominance of cyclic patterns of designing such as attending to problems that give rise to a solution but also a new problem has already been conceptualized partly through the notions of "co-evolution" (Dorst & Cross, 2001) or "cycles of activity" (Cross, 2001) in the Design Research field, and also through the findings about problem-solution cycles (Poole, 1983) and decision recycles (Poole & Roth, 1989) in the Small Group Communication field. Design has been described as a non-linear, heuristic, and dynamic process (Guindon, 1990;Hickling, 1982;Carroll & Rosson, 1985;Visser, 1994).…”