Collins and Guetzkow: A Simple Working Model of Decision-Making Groups

R.Foranda Spring 2002

 

Albert Einstein once said, “Theories should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.”  Collins and Guetzkow’s model of decision-making groups is a perfect illustration of an uncomplicated yet influential theory.  As Littlejohn (2002) noted, “This simple model captures the major themes of research on task groups, and it illustrates the input-process-output approach very well” (p. 264).  This paper will explicate the key concepts of Collins and Guetzkow’s small group communication theory, and will apply the criteria for evaluating theories to analyze their decision-making model.

 

The general context of Collins and Guetzkow’s theory suggests the following: a) task groups encounter two types of obstacles, b) the group produces behaviors related to those obstacles c) those behaviors contribute to the group’s final output and productivity, and d) two rewards result in the end that “determine what behaviors will be learned and maintained in response to future obstacles” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 82).

There are several fundamental rudiments involved with Collins and Guetzkow’s theory.  As previously mentioned, task groups will first come across two kinds of obstacles: task and interpersonal.  Collins and Guetzkow (1964) defined a task obstacle as “a particular aspect of the total task environment which blocks, inhibits, or limits group productivity” (p. 70).  Littlejohn (2002) labeled task obstacles as “difficulties encountered by the group, such as planning an event or approving a policy” (p. 264). 

 

Interpersonal obstacles are dilemmas “presented by the behaviors of other members of the group- including expectations about what should be and what will be done by other group members” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 70).  “Such obstacles include the need to make one’s ideas clear to others, to deal with conflict among participants, to handle individual member differences, and so forth” (Littlejohn, 1992, p. 295). 

“In any group discussion, members will be dealing simultaneously with task and interpersonal obstacles” (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 264).  As a result, group members will always produce behaviors related to both obstacles.  The difference between the two “is primarily made to emphasize the importance of interpersonal obstacles.  These interpersonal obstacles are just as likely to provoke group failure as are task obstacles” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 86).  Therefore, group behaviors associated with task and interpersonal obstacles make a significant impact towards the group’s final output.

 

“When group members interact with one another in performing the decision-making task, they create a social system different from (and often greater than) those of the individual members taken together” (Cathcart & Samovar, 1984, p. 151).  Collins and Guetzkow called this an assembly effect.  “An assembly effect occurs when the group is able to achieve collectively something which could not have been achieved by any member working alone or by a combination of individual efforts.  It is a potential present in a collection of individuals which is realized only when the group members have the skill to build an interpersonal relation effective enough to outperform the sum of individual productivities” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 58, 60).

 

Collins and Guetzkow further elaborated that group productivity is more efficient that individual productivity in three ways: resources, social motivation, and social influence.  First, a group will always have more resources than an individual person.  As the old saying goes, “two heads are better then one.”  Collins and Guetzkow (1964) stated, “group products will frequently be superior because the pooling of individual judgments eliminates error.  The greater potential resources of a collection of individuals mean that the group is more likely to discover an alternative than a single individual” (p. 52).

 

As for social motivation, “the presence of other people in the face-to-face decision-making conference creates new motivational implications for each group member.  Many of the goals and rewards which an individual values are available only when he is in the presence of other people” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 53).   Thus, an individual is then driven for different reasons in a group because of the social motivation the group creates.

Last, social influence plays a part in that once a group member comes up with a valid contribution, “other group members can benefit from the efforts of their fellow” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 53).  However, “a contribution is most likely to be accepted if it is (a) well supported by evidence, (b) logically sound and internally consistent, (c) and consistent with past experience.  This kind of social influence improves the quality of the group product” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 53). 

 

   The last element of Collins and Guetzkow’s theory are task and interpersonal rewards.  They argued that both rewards associate with task and interpersonal obstacles and “serve to mold, maintain, and motivate group behaviors” (Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 74).  Rewards can be “a material or psychological recompense provided by the group which is sufficient to reinforce individual behavior in the direction of group loyalty” (Bormann, 1990, p. 84). 

 

Task rewards are “events external to the group; they constitute feedback from the environment to the group.  Task rewards may be delayed for long periods of time after group action.  In contrast, interpersonal rewards are events in the behavior of group members and therefore, internal to the group” (Collins and Guetzkow, 1964, p. 86).

 

Moreover, interpersonal rewards can be especially important because “participants in any decision-making conference are profoundly and directly affected by the behaviors of other group members.  In many decision-making groups, a smile or other form of social approval is often more important than a successful task solution” (Collins and Guetzkow, 1964, p. 75).

 

Littlejohn (2002) further noted, “Group rewards can be positive or negative.  Successful goal achievement is usually positively rewarding to group members.  In addition, the resolution of conflict and successful communication reap interpersonal rewards.  Negative ‘rewards’ will influence the group adversely” (p. 264).

For example, “a successfully planned picnic is a task reward and the fun involved in planning it is an interpersonal reward.  If the job is well done and enjoyed by the members, their future decision-making will be affected in a positive way.  If the task was not well done or the members did not handle their differences well, negative feedback may make it more difficult next time” (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 264).  

 

Now, that I have given you a thorough explanation of Collins and Guetzkow’s theory, following will be brief definitions and application of the criteria used to evaluate theories: theoretical scope, appropriateness, heuristic value, validity, parsimony, and openness.

 

Theoretical Scope: According to Littlejohn (2002), “theoretical scope relies on the principle of generality, or the idea that a theory’s explanation must be sufficiently general to cover a range of events beyond a single observation” (p. 30).  In other words, a theory’s scope “is its comprehensiveness or inclusiveness” (Littlejohn, 2002, 30).  Collins and Guetzkow’s theoretical scope was comprehensive in that it covered a large realm of communication aspects.  Although their theory chiefly dealt with the group decision-making process, many factors in their model explained “a wide variety of communication-related behaviors” (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 31).  For example, their model stressed the importance of interpersonal obstacles and rewards, and definitely showed that there is more to decision-making than brainstorming solutions.

 

Appropriateness: Is the theory appropriate to the circumstances involved?  Is it appropriate to the intended audience?  This criterion suggests that a theory be consistent with whatever claims it is making.  Such as, “if you assume that the most important things affecting behavior are unconscious, it would be inappropriate to report survey data in which subjects were asked why they did certain things” (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 31). 

I believe that Collins and Guetzkow’s theory is definitely appropriate for its proposed audience.  The title of their theory, “A simple working model of decision-making groups” is a perfect name that appropriately describes the theory’s simplistic and candid nature.

 

Heuristic Value: This criterion evaluates whether the theory excites or generates new ideas.  A theory’s heuristic value gives rise to whether a person will want to learn more about the theory, and if it is used as a springboard for new concepts.  This criterion corresponds well with Collins and Guetzkow’s theory because it provided a starting point for other theories to follow.  In fact, many current group decision-making models and small group communication theories reflect aspects of Collins and Guetzkow’s theory. 

 

Validity: Littlejohn (2002) said, “validity is the truth value of a theory” (p. 31).  Validity has at least three meanings: value, correspondence, and generalizability.  A theory with the validity of value means that it is a worthy study of the phenomena (or phenomenon) at hand.  A theory with the validity of correspondence means that the ideas brought forth by the theory are fit and can be actually seen. A theory with the validity of generalizability means that its concept can apply to various situations.

 

I believe that Collins and Guetzkow’s theory falls under each meaning of validity.  First, it has the validity of value because it provided an array of decision-making elements that can apply to theoretical and practical usefulness.  It also has the validity of correspondence because the concepts and relations, such as group behaviors, can be readily observed.  Last, their theory has the validity of generalizability because concepts of their theory (ex: interpersonal obstacles) can relate to different types of communication conditions.     

Parsimony: This is the standard of simplicity that thoroughly explains the scientific theory.  It is the parsimonious theory that will be upheld against the one that is too complicated to comprehend.  For instance, the reason why Shannon and Weaver’s information theory became so successful was because Weaver was able to translate Shannon’s general communication system theory into a parsimonious language that everyday people could understand.

 

Of all the criteria, I deem Collins and Guetzkow’s theory strongest in its parsimony.  Again, Collins and Guetzkow referred to it as a simple model, which indeed was a proper and suitable name.  In their book, A Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision-Making, they make their theory extremely clear with straightforward terminology. 

 

Openness: Is the theory basically open to other ideas and possibilities?  This means, “The theorist recognizes that his or her construction is a way of looking rather than a reproduction of reality.  It admits to diversity and invites dialogue with other perspectives.  It acknowledges its own incompleteness” (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 32).

I feel that Collins and Guetzkow’s theory had openness because both theorists assumed that the decision-making process could further be explained.  For instance, they said, “it may be useful to make applications of the model in an analysis of more complex findings” (Collins and Guetzkow, 1964, p. 82).

 

In sum, Collins and Guetzkow’s theory is a very important and prominent model to study.  Through its simplistic language, it emphasized the importance of interpersonal concepts in the group decision-making process.  People still enter groups with task and interpersonal obstacles, and it is imperative to note and be aware of them.  Group behaviors are also vital to understand because they predict group outputs, where the ideal goal is the creation of an assembly affect.  Finally, rewards are extremely significant because if they are positive, group members will have better feelings toward future decision-making groups.

 

REFERENCES

 

Bormann, E. (1990). Small group communication: Theory and practice. 84.  

 

Cathcart, R.S., & Samovar, L.A. (1984). Small group communication: A reader. 151. 

 

Collins B. E., & Guetzkow H. (1964).  A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. 52, 53, 58, 60, 70, 74, 75, 82, 86.

 

Littlejohn, S.W. (1992). Theories of human communication. 295.

    

Littlejohn, S.W. (2002). Theories of human communication. 30-32, 264.