Group decisions can be an arduous and complex process. Communication professors Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran offer a functional perspective on how group interaction can have a positive effect on decision-making. In addition, they make an analogy between biological systems and small groups, both needing to survive and thrive in an evolving environment. As functional perspective illustrates the wisdom of joint interaction, Hirokawa and Gouran (2000) view the group decision-making process as needing to fulfill four task requirements if members are to reach high quality decisions, as cited in (Griffin, 2000). The four functions for effective decision-making are (1) problem analysis, (2) goal setting, (3) identification of alternatives, and (4) evaluation of positive and negative consequences (Griffin, 2000).
First, a group must realistically look at the situation and analyze the problem. According to Hirokawa, after a group acknowledges a need to be addressed, they still must figure out the nature, extent, and probable causes of the problem that confronts the group (Griffin, 2000). Second, a group must set goals and objectives in order to establish criteria by which to judge proposed solutions. Without establishing goals, Hirokawa and Gouran believe that personal prejudice or organizational politics will drive the choice rather than reason (Griffin, 2000). Next, group members must identify their alternatives. Alternatives provide group members options from which they can pick and choose. Once the group has identified alternative solutions, they must determine the positive and negative features of each alternative. Hirokawa states that some groups have a positive bias, spotting favorable characteristics of alternative choices is more important than identifying negative qualities. While other group tasks have a negative bias, the .
unattractive characteristics of choice options carry more weight than the positive attributes (Griffin, 2000).
