Teaching Resources

---

Chapter 4

Downloads

Chapter 4 discussion questions and classroom activities (doc)
Chapter 4 PowerPoint
Moon Landing Exercise (doc)
Moon Landing Score Sheet (doc)
Communication Network Structure

Discussion Questions

1) Does computer-mediated discussion have any advantages over face-to-face meetings? When would it be good for groups to use new technology to communicate with each other? What kind of technology is good to use? Why? When is face-to-face meeting better?

2) Why do group communication scholars note that structuring the discussion can lead to better quality decisions? Do you agree?

• Of the procedures discussed in the chapter (Roberts’ Rules, consensus, dialectics, devils’ advocacy, nominal group technique, etc.), which ones seem most useful to you? Why?
• Have you used any of these? If so, what was your experience like?  If not, do you think that using a standardized procedure would change the outcome of your decision? Why or why not?
• What kinds of outside factors could influence the kind of decision-making procedure that a group might use?

3) What decision rule does your family typically use? What about your group of friends or work groups you have been part of? Why do you think different groups might use different decision rules?

4) What are the strengths and weaknesses of different decision rules? When would it be advantageous to use something other than majority rule?

Classroom activities

1) Communication Network Structure

Ask students to observe a small group discussion and describe which network structure best fits their pattern of interaction.

One way to do this is to have students attend a meeting outside of class time (city council, student organization, friends/house-mates making a decision, etc.) and observe the group’s conversation. Another way is to provide an example in class (through a movie clip, a live group discussion, or a print-out of a decision online discussion) of a group that is trying to make a decision.

Ask students to draw a visual map of the discussion by making circles to represent each group member. A sample of this kind of schematic is provided (pdf). As the discussion proceeds, the student observer should draw a line to represent communication among group members so that at the end of the discussion they have something approximating a network visualization of the discussion.

Debrief questions:

• What was it like to try to make a communication network of this discussion?
• Do any of the maps presented in the chapter (figure 4.1) come close to fitting what you observed in this group?
• Do you think this group have a centralized or decentralized communication network?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of this kind of communication structure?
• Was the communication structure for this group appropriate for the decision task that they faced?  Why or why not?

2) Groupthink Analysis

Give students an example of groupthink either by using case studies from published articles and books (including the original cases from Janis, or more recent research, listed below), or from the video “Groupthink” by CRM Learning  (http://www.crmlearning.com/groupthink-2nd-edition?gclid=CIiEqt-K35kCFQw9GgodVFiLVw ), which teaches the characteristics of groupthink and provides a re-enactment of the Space Shuttle challenger disaster.

Example research articles:

Esser, J. K., & Lindoefer, J. S. (1989). Groupthink and the space shuttle challenger accident: Toward a quantitative case analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 167-177.

Neck, C. P., & Moorhead, G. (1992). Jury deliberations in the trial of U.S. v. John DeLorean: A case analysis of groupthink avoidance and an enhanced framework. Human Relations, 45, 1077-1091

Peterson, R. S., Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E. T., & Martorana, P. (1998).  Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 272-305.

Walker, S. G. and Watson, G. L. (1989) Groupthink and integrative complexity in British foreign policy-making: the Munich case. Cooperation and Conflict, XXIV, 199-212.

Analysis Questions

• To what extent does this group exhibit the “symptoms” of groupthink?
• What decision making techniques discussed in the chapter could have been used to help prevent groupthink in this situation?
• How can you recognize if a group is starting to engage in groupthink?
• One of the key characteristics of groupthink is group cohesiveness.  But, group cohesiveness is not necessarily a bad thing: it can lead to a shared group identity, member satisfaction, and other positive outcomes. So, how do you know if a group is too cohesive?
• How can the embedded systems model help explain groupthink?

3) Devil’s Advocacy and Dialectic Techniques

Divide the class into half and assign one half to use the Devil’s Advocacy technique and one half to use Dialectic Procedures. Instructions below (taken from Sunwolf & Seibold, 1999). If the class is large, ask students to get into groups of 6-10 people for this exercise. Students should read the scenario provided and make a decision using the technique that their group has been assigned.

Scenario

Your group has been chosen by the university administration to help improve the retention of first-generation students in your school. Students who are the first person in their family to go to college have some specific challenges and, for whatever reason, your school has had a hard time helping these students stay enrolled after their first year. Your task is to create some kind of program that will help students stay in school by providing them with the kind of support that they need to make it through beyond the first year of college.

The president of your university recognizes that your group will need some resources to implement your plan, so she has agreed to provide your group with $5,000 to pilot your suggestion. The goal of your meeting is to decide how you will spend the money.

Your group should follow the decision making technique described below to guide your discussion.

Devil’s Advocacy Instructions

Assign one or two of your group members to act as “devil’s advocates” or critical advisors to the group. These people should observe the decision making, and provide constructive criticism of the group’s plan. To be a good critical advisor, these people should (1) raise questions about the group’s assumptions about the problem and potential solutions, and (2) think about the potential consequences of the proposed solution. The critical advisor is not responsible for creating an alternative solution, but in pointing out important considerations that have been overlooked by the group. The group should do their best to respond to the issues raised by the critical advisors in crafting a new/improved solution.

Dialectical Technique Instructions

Divide your group into two subgroups. Each group should analyze the problem and propose a potential solution. Each subgroup should also be ready to explain what they think is at the root of the problem and why their solution addresses those assumptions. Subgroups then should come together, explain their two different solutions, and engage in a discussion to critique the assumptions behind the solutions and raise concerns about possible consequences. One thing to do in this larger group meeting is to address the question “if we had different assumptions about the source of the problem, what kind of solution would we recommend?  Is this a better solution than what we are currently recommending?” In the end, the group should come to consensus on a solution that addresses these concerns.

Debrief Questions

• What was it like to follow this decision-making technique? How well did your group stick to the instructions?
• How similar or different was this discussion from the way you usually make decisions in groups?
• What was useful about this technique? What was most challenging about it?
• Do you think it would be a good idea for you to encourage one of the other groups you are part of to use this technique? Why or why not?
• How do the two different types of decision making technique (devil’s advocacy and dialectics) compare? When do you think one might be better to use than the other? Why?