Page 257 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J
P. 257
240 Chapter 9
should accept the first proposal” to “OK, let’s reject the first proposal.” A transition
is needed; the ambiguity provides this transition, which allows the member to move
from “I think we should accept the first proposal” to “Maybe you are right. There
might be some problems with the first proposal that I hadn’t considered. Let’s look at
it more closely before we decide.” Members move gradually toward a common group
position. Near the end of this phase a consensus decision emerges, sometimes sud-
denly. The members usually know when this point is reached, and they all indicate
support for the decision. If members do not reach this point, they may need to resolve
the disagreement by majority vote.
Reinforcement After a group has accomplished its primary objective, it doesn’t just
immediately move on to a different problem or disband. Members reinforce each
other and themselves for a job well done. They say such things as, “Wow, it took a
long time, but we got some really important things done,” or “I really like the pro-
posal. It’s going to work beautifully,” or “I’m proud of us for coming up with this. You
are super and this has been a rewarding experience.” Members pat each other on the
back and reinforce the positive feelings they have toward the decision and toward each
other.
Fisher believed that unless some outside factor (like severe time pressure) inter-
feres with the group’s natural decision- making process, these phases will follow each
other in a predictable way, although the proportion of time spent in each phase may
vary from decision to decision. It is important to recall, however, that he studied inter-
action in previously developed groups that had already passed through their forma-
tion stage.
Poole’s more recent investigations have called into question the idea that most
55
groups experience exactly the same phases, in the same order. A number of factors
influence not only what phases groups experience but also in what order the phases
occur. For example, some groups experience long, drawn- out conflict phases with
56
little socioemotional integration after the conflict. Others experience lengthy periods
of idea development with no overt conflict.
Poole’s contingency model of group decision making describes three types of
factors that affect phasic progression: objective task characteristics, group task char-
57
acteristics, and group structural characteristics. Objective task characteristics include
such factors as goal clarity and potential impact of the decision. For example, if the
group’s goal is clear at the beginning of the process, members may be able to shorten
the orientation phase. Group task characteristics include such factors as time and pop-
ulation familiarity. Members are more likely to spend extra time orienting themselves
to the task and arguing the merits of various options for a novel task that is unfamiliar
to them than for a familiar one. Finally, group structural characteristics refer to how
members of the group work together and include such factors as cohesiveness, con-
flict, and history. Members who have experienced divisive conflict may either run
away from potential arguments in the group or may approach group meetings with
their defenses up and boxing gloves on.
gal37018_ch09_225_258.indd 240 3/28/18 12:37 PM