.
Communication is best when it does not obstruct or distort the free flow of ideas. Hirokawa and Gouran outline three types of communication in decision-making groups (Griffin, 2000). The first type is promotive, interaction that calls attention to one of the four decision-making functions. The promotive type is highly desirable. The second type is disruptive, interaction that detracts from the group's ability to achieve the four task functions. This hinders the group, causing the decision-making process to slow down. The third type is counteractive, interaction that refocuses the group. This is an effort to keep the group "back on track." Since most communication disrupts, effective group decision-making depends upon counteractive influence (Griffin, 2000).
Hirokawa's Function-Oriented Interaction Coding System (FOICS) classifies each functional utterance, "an uninterrupted statement of a single member that appears to perform a specified function within the group interaction process," for analysis (Griffin, 2000). Raters are asked to make two judgments. 1-Which of the four requisite functions does an utterance address? 2- Does the utterance promote or disrupt the group's focus? Researchers can then use the data to examine the effect of verbal interaction on the decision outcome (Griffin, 2000). Although, messages can serve as multiple meanings, Hirokawa continues to refine his methodology. As a social scientist, Hirokawa tested his functional perspective over the last two decades in more than a dozen controlled laboratory studies (Griffin, 2000). Hirokawa and Gouran give practical advice for amateurs and professionals to be skeptical of personal opinion and not to depend on unsupported intuitions. The theorists also attribute their four requisite functions to philosopher John Dewey and his six-step process of reflective thinking. However, Hirokawa and Gouran's functional perspective theory has been criticized for its mixed experimental results, the exclusion of political and social factors, and an emphasis that most real-life groups have prior decision-making history are embedded within larger organizations (Griffin, 2000).
