Let's talk about functional theory of group decision making,

the last theory that we're going to discuss in group communication lecture.

John Cragan and David Wright conclude that

functional theory is one of the leading theories in group communication.

It is highly regarded because it intuitively appealing rational and testable.

The theory attempts to explain how and why communication is

related to the quality of the decisions groups make.

Let's look at full functions requisites to achieve good decisions.

Requisite functions are requirements for positive group outcome.

Let's look at problem analysis.

Groups must first create an understanding of the nature of the problem,

the seriousness and urgency of the problem,

the feasible origin of the problem and

the consequences associated with not solving the problem.

Goal setting. Next, they must establish criteria by which to judge proposed solutions.

If they fail to do this,

the decisions are more likely to be driven by politics than reason.

Identification of alternatives.

Hirokawa and Gouran stressed the importance of considering a number

of alternative solutions from which the group members could choose.

Hirokawa and Gouran argue that if no one calls attention to

the need for generating as many as alternative as realistically possible,

then relatively few may be introduced,

and the corresponding possibility of finding the acceptable answer will be low.

Evaluation of positive and negative characteristics of each alternative,

after a group has identified alternative solutions,

the participants must take care to test

the relative merits of each option against the criteria they believe are important.

It is important to know that Hirokawa and Gouran believed that all four functions

serve an important purpose and that no individual function is better than another.

They must all be used to reach a high quality decision.

The role communication in achieving good decision.

Hirokawa and Gouran make emphasis on the role communication in achieving good decision.

First, talk as the social tool,

that helps groups reach wise decisions.

Second, communication obstacles usually appear when

the group members try to reach a tasks for a discussion.

Among them such as ignorance of the issue,

faulty facts, misguided assumptions,

sloppy evaluation of options, illogical interferences,

disregard of procedural norms,

and influence by powerful members.

To achieve good decisions,

group members should try to eliminate them.

What are the three types of communication?

Hirokawa and Gouran outlined three types of communication in decision making groups.

Promotive, interaction that calls attention to one of the four decision making functions.

Communication geared towards one of the requisite functions.

For example, when the group most spend time on planning while discussing.

It is supposed that this is a key parameter for positive outcome.

Disruptive, interaction that detracts from

the group's ability to achieve the four task functions.

For example, the discussion of important issue is

postponed because part of the group ignored its importance.

Counteractive, interaction that focuses the group.

Messages that return and disrupt group back to the requisite functions.

For instance, let's go back to relation of

candidates for conducting a public presentation.

So to conclude, let's look at some of the critical points of functional theory.

The lack of historical and institutional functions.

Most of studies have been conducted with groups in laboratories.

Stohl and Holmes advocate adding historical and institutional functions because

most real life groups have a prior decision

making history and are embedded within the larger organization.

Thus, the theory isn't relevant in every situation.

Lack of attention to the broader context in which groups operate.

Most studies have been conducted in the laboratory without

historical and institutional context as mentioned.

And the static method of functional requisites specified by the theory,

one size fits all model.

To conclude our lecture,

let's look at the case study.

How we apply the theory to practice?

Let's look at the case from public relations review of 2017.

Believe me, I'm one of you,

the role of common group affiliation in crisis communication.

Why the case have been chosen?

It illustrates the value of theory-based research to

everyday life and particularly to public relations.

In the context of group communication,

this case emphasizes the role of leadership especially in crisis.

It demonstrates the practical value of

social identity and optimal distinctiveness theories.

The case enhances understanding of communication between

small and large group creation membership similarity to group affiliation.

Let's define the problem of the case.

This research analyzes the effectiveness of

a CEO spokesperson affiliation to a social group during a crisis.

Based on the notion of optimal distinctiveness,

a more effective way to generate identification and

its concomitant positive effect seem to

be when the CEO spokesperson associates

him or herself with a smaller distinctive social group.

For example, a specific leisure time community.

What does the research question?

The author addressed the following question,

whether a group affiliation with a large heterogeneous group, such as parents,

can engender similarly positive effects in members of

the same social category compared with a smaller and more distinctive group,

here an amateur sports community.

Theoretical foundations of the case are social identity theory,

optimal distinctiveness theory, membership similarity,

role of leadership in crisis.

What is the hypothesis? According to the optimal distinctness theory in group loyalty,

as well as trust and cooperation,

are most effectively engaged by smaller distinctive groups.

Therefore, affiliation of a CEO spokesperson with a group that is very large and

heterogeneous seems less likely to engender or identification with members of this group,

and consequently, with the company spokesperson,

than groups that are homogeneous and distinctive.

You can see on your screen hypothesis one, hypothesis two.

What about the method?

An experiment, reading a textbook by spokesperson.

After reading the article,

a questionnaire containing the dependent and mediating variables,

as well as the manipulation,

checks and questions about the relevant personal information.

Parental version, "As a father of three children,

the accidents make me very concerned."

Cyclist version, "As an avid mountain tour cyclists,

the accidents make me very concerned."

A zero level of the independent variable

did not contain any information assigning the CEO to social group,

"The accidents make me very concerned."

So we have dependent variables,

identification with the CEO spokesperson, message credibility,

corporate trustworthiness, purchase intention, NWOM abstention.

As for a search sample,

352 panel participants completed the survey

and correctly remembered the CEO spokesperson group affiliation.

The age range from 30-54,

61 percent were female,

39 percent were male.

Expectedly, the bicycle maker was unknown to participants.

Membership in the group of parents was considered

when participant indicated to have one or more children.

Participants were considered to belong to the cyclic group.

When they stated to engage in mountain cycling tours at least occasionally,

scale points 3-7 on seven-point scale.

This resulted in 68 participants with

common parent group affiliation and

25 participants with common cyclist group affiliation.

To balance the group differences,

weighing factors for case does not belong to

the respective social group where introduced.

Now, you can see on the screen the variables.

And what results do we have?

A common group affiliation with

a large and heterogeneous group like parents does not engender positive effects.

Not corporate trustworthiness, purchase intention, NWOM abstention.

A similarity between the spokesperson and address stakes

holders that is logical in the crisis context does not seem to be sufficient.

Based on research outcomes,

affiliation with the smaller and more homogeneous group of

mountain bikers was the more sensible choice to achieve the desired effect.

Identification also directly influence trustworthiness

and purchase intention without message credibility as a mediator.

This shows the importance of identification with the spokesperson during a crisis.

When people identify with the communicator,

it does not matter much what he, she says.

So how do we apply all of this into practice?

Speech delivery based on preliminary scholarly research.

The insights on measurement and evaluation,

the efficiency of group communication.

Small and distinctive groups more focused on the customer,

for example, specific leisure time group.

The insights on testing the results in other communication areas.

Communication research is the backbone of effective communication campaigns.

By this case, we have illustrated how the group communication theory

may be applied to real-world communication problem. We agree.

With the statement of John Cragan and Donald Shields,

that theoretical development should enhance applications and,

in turn, applications should enhance theoretical development.

This case is testament to the fact that

scholarly outcomes may have programmatic goals and,

in the end, may contribute to the solutions for the real-world issues.

Functional Theory of Group Decision Making

Communication theory: bridging academia and practice

与讲师见面