Collaborative Production of Proposals in Group Decision Making

Abstract

This study suggests that argument as a language game in group interaction can be analyzed, using a discourse-analytic approach, to inform small group scholars about the relationship between influence and decision outcomes. To accomplish its purpose, the study analyzes a decision-making episode in an organizational group and focuses upon one specific speech act, the proposal. As a speech act, the proposal is central to the decision-making quality of the group in that it entails the structural expansion necessary for consensus-seeking discussion. The article shows how the development of the proposal in group interaction can satisfy the requirements for effective group decisions as outlined by Hirokawa (1988).

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beatty, M. J. (1989). Group members' decision rule/orientations and consensus. Human Communication Research, 16, 279-296.

Burleson, B. R. , Levine, B. J. , & Samter, W. (1984). Decision-making procedure and decision quality. Human Communication Research, 10, 557-574.

Chandler, T. A. (1981). Decision-making in small groups: A comparison of two models. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Communication, Cleveland State University, OH.

Fisher, B. A. , & Ellis, D. G. (1990). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frentz, T. S. , & Farrell, T. B. (1976). Language action: A paradigm for communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 333-349.

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1986). Toward the use of multiple methods for the study of group communication processes. Unpublished manuscript.

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14, 487-515.

Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Gouran, D. S. (1989). Facilitation of group communication: A critique of prior research and an agenda for future research. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 71-92.

Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Pace, R. (1983). A descriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making. Communication Monographs, 50, 363-379.

10.

Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Scheerhorn, D. R. (1986). Communication in faculty group decisionmaking. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decisionmaking (pp. 63-90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

11.

Jackson, S. , & Jacobs, S. (1981). The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion: A study of disagreement regulating. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 84-102.

12.

Jacobs, S. , & Jackson, S. (1981). Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 118-132.

13.

Poole, M. S. , McPhee, R. D. , & Seibold, D. R. (1982). A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision-making: Social schemes versus valence distribution. Communication Monographs, 47, 1-19.

14.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Seibold, D. R. , McPhee, R. D. , Poole, M. S. , Tanita, N. E. , & Canary, D. (1981). Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes. In G. Zeigelmuller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation (pp. 663-692). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.