Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Analysing-Functional-Theory-And-Groupth 👈

1. 1
Analysing functional theory and groupthink
theory in group task communication
Elween Loke
(elween88@gmail.com)
1. INTRODUCTION
Interaction between members during a group communication is dynamic. While the
ever-changing pattern of interaction is required to reach a decision, it at the same time might
take a toll on the efficiency of a group task. Based on functional theory and groupthink
theory, this paper attempts to look at the likelihood of achieving a high-quality decision
during a group task communication (Gouran & Hirokawa, 2003) and problems occur
throughout the process that might lead to ineffective outputs respectively (Littlejohn & Foss,
2008). While the two theories each play their roles in examining the process of group task
communication, they are not exclusive of each other. In fact, groupthink theory, which
zooms in to explain the inattention of vigilant decision making, can be regarded as a
component under the umbrella of functional theory, which focuses on the effectiveness of
decision making as a whole (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008; Janis 1982), as it was taken into
account during the formulation of functional theory.
II. BACKGROUND OF THEORIES
2.1 The origins
Functional theory was initially introduced by John Dewey to supersede the existing
psychology theory, which he deemed not able to reduce the utilisation of philosophical
conceptual process (Lewis, 1930). As a pragmatist, Dewey stressed that stimuli are factors
that contribute to the formation of coordination. The theory was adopted in communication
studies years thereafter and further developed by scholars such as Dennis Gouran and Randy
Hirokawa in the aspect of group task communication since 1983 (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008).
Other than taking on Dewey’s functional psychology approach, the theory that Gouran and
Hirokawa came up with was also influenced by Robert Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis
and Irving Janis’ groupthink theory (Salazar, 2009). This is also why Littlejohn and Foss
(2008) pointed out that functional theory, due to its functionalist nature, views group task
communication in a more general manner compared to groupthink theory, which focuses
more specifically on the danger of cohesiveness in group task communication. They further
explained by looking at the general model that Gouran and Hirokawa.
The functionalist model begins with group identifying and assessing a problem,
followed by the gathering and evaluation of information of the problem. Next, the group

2. 2
generates a myriad of alternative proposals and discusses objectives they each strive to
accomplish respectively. A choice based on consensus will be made by the end of the
evaluation in order to initiate the course of action.
Meanwhile, groupthink theory emerged from in depth examinations of group
decision making and stressed on the importance of critical thinking in getting effective
outputs (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008). Groupthink is a mode of thinking whereby in a group task
communication setting, members strived so hard to minimise conflict within the group to
maintain cohesiveness that leads to the making of dysfunctional decisions (Forsyth, 2010;
Irving, 1982). The concept of groupthink was discussed by psychologist Kurt Lewin in the
1930s but was further developed by Irving Janis, who is also a psychologist, and his
colleagues (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008). Janis used historical data to analyse several political
decision making incidents and discovered that episodes such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the
Korean War and Pearl Harbour were evidences of groupthink’s negative impact.
According to Littlejohn and Foss (2010), Janis identified eight symptoms that can
lead to groupthink phenomenon. First, it’s the illusion of invulnerability, which explains the
over-confidence of the group. Secondly, the group, in a collective effort, rationalise their
action, as if the decision they came up with is the absolute best. The third symptom is the
group maintains an inherent morality, which gives them confidence boost that they had
arrived at the decision because of their motivation. Next is the opinion that leaders who are
less supportive of a decision are stereotyped as evil, stupid and weak. The fifth symptom is
the direct pressure exerted on members to refrain their dissent voices, and this leads to the
sixth symptom – self-censorship of disagreement. A shared sense of illusion of unanimity in
the making of a decision within the group is the seventh symptoms. Finally, the emergence
of self-appointed mind-guards who act as intermediaries that prevent members from raising
conflicting proposals that can decelerate the decision making process.
2.2 Theories tradition
It is noticeable that both functional theory and groupthink theory were either
discussed or developed by psychologists. According to Littlejohn and Foss (2008), the
research methods used to examine these theories are also similar to that of in the socio-
psychological tradition. Nonetheless, they categorised the theories under the socio-cultural
tradition, reasoning that studies on how groups work are based on strong kinship among
members. Besides, what sets groupthink theory and functional theory apart from the socio-
psychological tradition is that both rest on the assumption that the effectiveness of decision-
making is not dependent on the production of communicative behaviours, but how these
elements influenced the success of task completion (Salazar, 2009). For instance, a member
might raise his voice to express his opinion but the success or failure of a group discussion
does not solely depend on his action – unless his behaviour triggers other responses, which

3. 3
could reduce the effectiveness of decision making process, such as causing verbal arguments
with other members.
It is also worthy to note that a classic theory that focuses on communicative
behaviours in small-group communication and falls under the socio-psychological tradition
is Robert Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis, which explains how messages conveyed
within the group shape the roles and personalities of group members (Littlejohn & Foss,
2008).
2.3 Philosophical assumptions
Since the 1970s, historical development showed that functional theory triggered an
empirical positivist tradition in small group research (Stohl & Holmes, 2012; Wittenbaum et
al., 2004). Epistemologically, the theory assumes the existence of a systematic truth in
guiding the group decision-making process, which can be explained as a normative model
formulated by idealised assumptions that members are capable of making sound decisions
(Gouran & Hirokawa, 1983). For instance, based on factors contributing to faulty decisions,
Gouran and Hirokawa identified few functional requisites for effective decision making - (1)
Clarify issue/address questions; (2) Look for answers that match the question; (3) Generate
an appropriate range for optional answers; (4) Examine the pros and cons of optional
answers critically, and (5) Select the most appropriate solutions (Littlejohn & Foss, 2010).
To measure these functional requisites, the two researchers identified four aspects of
decision quality – (1) Proper understanding of the problem; (2) Proper understanding of a
good decision’s objectives and standards; (3) Proper assessment of optional answers’
positive qualities, and (4) Proper assessment of option answers’ negative qualities (ibid.).
Hence, the measurement of decision quality and the identification of functional requisites
are formulated on the basis of functional theory’s ontological assumptions, which assert the
existence of universal entities (Salazar, 2009; Littlejohn & Foss, 2008; Gouran & Hirokawa,
1983).
Comparatively, researchers have different thoughts about the philosophical
assumptions of groupthink theory, reasoning that it recognises the impact of a causal-effect
relationship, yet believed that outcome changes and develops over time instead of being
solely influenced by the precursors or causes (Wilcox, 2010). Scholars who identified
groupthink theory from a positivist perspective assumed that groups are goal-oriented, thus
they comply with a normative standard, which Janis called ‘vigilant decision-making’ and
used to judge group task communications1
(Salazar, 2009; Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Forsyth
1
The vigilant decision-making process includes (1) Survey the range of objectives; (2) Review and formulate
options; (3) Examine risks and benefits of options; (4) Perform information search; (5) Process incoming
information from the search; (5) Reassess the once-rejected options; (6) Confront trade-offs (loses one quality
in exchange of another quality) when assessing preferred options; (7) Work out a plan on the preferred choice
along with contingency plans should the final decision fail (Salazar, 2009; Wittenbaum et al., 2004).

4. 4
(2010) pointed that Janis had set three antecedent conditions that lead to groupthink –
cohesion, structural faults of groups as well as organisations and provocative emotional
contexts. He also explained that Janis had identified recurring patterns in groupthink
situations. Among them are overestimation of the group, closed-mindedness and pressures
toward uniformity. Nonetheless, there are also scholars argued that when Janis attempted to
examine group decision failures from a more objectivist point of view, he discovered that
outcome was thoroughly influenced by groupthink, which in actual fact is a departure from
the positivist model (Bryant & Miron, 2007). The spirit of maintaining the ‘cohesiveness’,
which is the precursor or cause, during a group discussion does not mean every group
member is less critical of a suggestion recommended by an expert as assumed. In other
words, the ineffectiveness of a decision making process can neither be explained using rigid
communication models nor justified by observing specific precursors or causes, of which
nature can be multi-dimensional, as the ultimate contributing factor.
Despite the ambiguity, most scholars concurred that during research, precursors and
causes should be taken into account during analysis and the communication process should
also be interpreted to improve the application of groupthink theory (Wilcox, 2010; Hart,
1991). Researchers are encouraged to look at the causal-effect relationship during group task
communication and interpret other influencing factors that can affect the effectiveness of
decision-making.
III. APPLICATION OF THEORIES
Gouran, Hirokawa and their colleagues had been leading various studies on
functional theory, which mirrors that of John Dewey’s2
. The group decision model they
came up with are - (1) Identify and assess a problem; (2) Gather and evaluation information
on the problem; (3) Generate alternative proposals to tackle the problem; (4) Evaluate the
proposals; (5) Make a choice based on a consensus (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008).
Based on the four aspects of decision quality3
, Hirokawa had conducted various
laboratory investigations and case studies between the early 1980s and early 1990s
(Wittenbaum et al., 2004). One of the examples was a group discussion on a particular
university-level plagiarism incident, which is regulated in a laboratory environment.
Statistical results showed that out of the 40 three-member groups, those that fulfilled the
four aspects of decision quality made better decisions (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008). Similar
findings generated from various studies also proved that there are correlations between
decision-making performance and members’ ability to fulfill task requirements, thus add
2
The six-step problem solving process by John Dewey: (1) Expressing a difficulty; (2) defining the problem;
(3) analysing the problem; (4) suggesting solutions; (5) comparing alternatives and testing them against a set of
objectives or criteria; (6) implementing the best solution (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008).
3
Refer to the four aspects of decision quality explained in 2.3 Philosophical Assumptions on p2.

5. 5
credence to the study of group task communication from a functionalist perspective
(Wittenbaum et al., 2004).
Meanwhile, groupthink theory is used by Janis to explain various decision failures
due to faulty group communication. One of the incidents he analysed was the Pearl Harbour
attack on 1941. The attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii was due to lack of precaution taken
by the American military officers (Forsyth, 2010). The naval officers refused to take
Washington’s warning seriously, reasoning that it was unlikely for the Japanese to conduct a
surprise military strike. Some of the rationalisations they came up with were (1) The
Japanese would not dare to launch a full-scale attack against Hawaii (closed-mindedness); (2)
Hawaii is capable of destroying the Japanese (overestimation of group) (Janis, 1982).
On the contrary, Janis (1971) noted that Kennedy administration’s response to the
Cuban missile crisis in 1962 is a successful case of decision making. President Kennedy,
which had experienced an instance of groupthink in the Bay of Pigs invasion4
a year before,
consulted outsiders and experts to obtain fresh opinions when they learned that Cuba was
building offensive nuclear weapon stations and armed with Soviet missiles (Littlejohn &
Foss, 2008). He also encouraged his advisors to constantly challenge one another besides
setting up smaller groups to discuss the problem independently. As a result, Kennedy’s
administration managed to end the Cuba confrontation before it escalates into a full-scale
nuclear war (Roberts, 2012).
IV. CONCLUSION
4.1 Critiques
While functional theory is known for providing a general model to measure decision-
making effectiveness in various forms of group task communication, it fails to accommodate
different situations and contexts. Emphasis is given on the conceptualisation of ‘group
effectiveness’ instead that of a particular problem. In other words, ‘group effectiveness’ is
rigidly measured based on the pre-established standards such as ‘functional requisites’ even
though that particular problem may have other undiscovered ‘functional requisites’ to fulfill
(Salazar, 2009).
As for groupthink theory, its frequent adoption in the studies of prominent
international relations issues leads to the questioning of its applicability in group task
communication in different circumstances. The groupthink phenomenon does exist in
different levels of organisation structure, and the process of decision-making does not
necessarily resemble that of the theory developed by Janis. The severity of a problem, for
4
Bay of Pigs invasion is a failed attack launched by a counter-revolutionary military, which was funded by the
United States’ Central Intelligent Agency (CIA) in 1961, on Fidel Castro’s communist government in Cuba.
Janis observed that Kennedy had failed to raise objections on the invasion plan, which the Eisenhower
administration had authorised before the former takes over the office, by the CIA (Janis, 1971).

6. 6
example, will determine the extent of ‘punishment’ each member would have to endure
should a defective decision is made, thus stimulate different degrees of groupthink in a
group task discussion. This means that a member with greater sense of responsibility or fear
of being punished for a defective decision will be encouraged to spur critical thinking during
discussion. The need to maintain group cohesiveness at this point of time is negligible. This
understanding is coherent with scholars who suggested that groupthink theory also has a
subjectivist dimension that should not be ignored.
The theory has also neglected the fact that environment can influence how precursors
or causes, which can be multi-dimensional by nature, function during a group task
communication. For instance, ‘group cohesiveness’ proposed by Janis is based on studies on
incidents that occurred in a low power distance individualist domain, whereby supportive
leadership is practised. However, the meaning of the concept changes when it is applied in a
high power distance collectivist domain, which operates based on directive leadership5
.
Hence, in comparison, the term connotes greater needs for members practising the
collectivist culture to conform to the order of their superior in order to maintain the status
quo of the relationship.
Besides, Janis has also excessively exalted the role of outsider experts without
considering their inputs may complicate the problems. For instance, when a reasonable
decision that the group had initially come up with is replaced for a better solution proposed
by an expert, members might not have a good grasp of the new decision and could give rise
to problems when executing it. The outsider experts might be specialists in that particular
area but their solution might not befit the context. This is something that might be
overlooked when the said group had to resolve the problem within the shortest timeframe
possible.
Groupthink theory may seem to have more problems that need to be rectified
because it could be applied in studies in other areas but it has greater development potential
as compared to functional theory. Unlike functional theory, which strives to improve the
effectiveness of group task communication through models in general, groupthink theory
has a stronger sense of urgency in solving problems, takes severity of consequences into
consideration and addresses problems on the lack of critical thinking more specifically.
While scholars had already identified its ability to oscillate between the objectivist and
subjectivist dimensions, it should break free from the rigid group task communication
models and expand beyond the functionalist perspective.
5
The concept of supportive leadership and directive leadership is taken from a study on leadership and team
cohesiveness across culture (Wendt, Euwema & Emmerik, 2009).

7. 7
V. REFERENCES
Bryant, J. & Miron, D. (2007). Historical contexts and trends in development of
communication theory. In Whaley, B.B. & Samter, W. (Eds.), Explaining communication:
Contemporary theories and exemplars. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Craig, R.T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), pp.119-
161.
Forsyth, D. (2010). Group dynamics (5th
ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Gouran, D.S. & Hirokawa, R.Y. (1983). The role of communication in decision-making
groups: A functional perspective. In Mander, M. (Ed.), Communications in transition.
New York: Praeger.
Gouran, D. S. & Hirokawa, R.Y. (2003). Effective decision making and problem solving in
groups: A functional perspective. In Hirokawa, R.Y., Cathcart, R.S., Samovar, L.A. &
Henman, L.D. (Eds.), Small group communication theory and practice: An anthology (8th
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hart, P. (1991). Classics in political psychology: Irving L. Janis’ victim of groupthink.
Political Psychology, 12(2), pp.247-278.
Janis, I.L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5(6), pp.43-46, 73-76.
Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd
ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Lewis, C.I. (1930). Pragmatism and current thought. Journal of Philosophy, 27(9), pp.238-
246.
Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2008). Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Belmont:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2010). Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Long
Grove: Waveland Press Inc.
Roberts, P.M. (2012). Introduction: The Cuban missile crisis. In Roberts, P.M. (Ed.), Cuban
missile crisis: The essential reference guide. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Rose, J.D. (2011). Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory – A literary review.
Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), pp.37-57.
Salazar, A.J. (2009). Fuctional group communication theory. In Littlejohn S.W. & Foss, K.A.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

8. 8
Stohl, C. & Holmes, M.E. (2012). A functional perspective for bona fide groups. In Deetz,
S.A. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16. New York: Routledge.
Wilcox, C. (2010). Groupthink: An impediment of success. Bloomington: Xlibris
Corporation.
Wendt, H., Euwema, M.C. & Emmerik, I.J.H. (2009). Leadership and cohesiveness across
cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), pp.358-370.
Witthenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., Paulus, P.A., Hirokawa, R., Ancona, D.G., et al.
(2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group
Research, 35(1), pp.17-43.