To Err Is Human, to Correct for it Divine: A Meta-Analysis of Research Testing the Functional Theory of Group Decision-Making Effectiveness.

This meta-analysis tests the functional perspective of small-group decision making, which holds that certain critical requisite functions must be satisfied for an effective group decision to be likely. The results suggest that evaluation of negative consequences of alternative solutions, problem analysis, and establishment of solution criteria (in this order) are the strongest predictors of group decision-making effectiveness. In addition, methodological study artifacts (sampling error, measurement error) and task moderators explain variability in previous findings. More specifically, the moderator subgroup analysis shows that evaluation of negative consequences is an even better predictor of group performance when task evaluation demands are high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]