jalpp (print) issn 2040–3658jalpp (online) issn 2040–3666

jalpp vol 7.3 2010 273–296©2013, equinox publishing

http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/japl.v7i3.273

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice

Article

Team decision making in the workplace: A systematic review of discourse analytic studies

Kristin Halvorsen

Abstract

Modern work life is increasingly characterized by a shift from the traditional, hierarchi-cal organization to more collaborative forms, often referred to as ‘the post-bureaucratic organization’. Within this setting, team decision making is becoming a crucial activity for managing the complex and multiprofessional processes at play. The study of orga-nizational decision making has had a long tradition in the social sciences, but largely without attending to the micro-analytic level of organizational interaction. This article provides a systematic review of discourse analytic studies on team decision making in professional settings such as healthcare, social work, education and business. The procedures used for identifying eligible studies included online database searches such as JSTOR, ISI Web of Science, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, as well as searches in ref-erence lists in scientific papers and books on discourse and decision making. Findings show that there are few discourse studies that explicitly deal with team decision making and that these are located empirically in different professional domains. A majority of the studies use ethnographic insights to supplement their analyses, but without analysing discourse outside the context of the meeting. The discussion will focus on discourse strategies related to assessing information, reaching agreement, managing disagreement, as well as how organizational hierarchies influence the use and effect of these strategies.

Keywords: systematic review; team decision making; workplace interaction; professional discourse; discourse analysis

Contact author

Kristin Halvorsen: NTNU Social Research, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

email: kristin.halvorsen@samfunn.ntnu.no

274 team decision making in the workplace

1 Introduction

The contemporary workplace has undergone considerable changes during the last decades, both in public and private sectors, nationally and transnation-ally. The professional communities are seen as changing from traditional craft guild forms towards more collaborative forms (Adler et al. 2008), and these changes in organization have been referred to, among others, as ‘post-Fordist’ (Harvey 1989), the ‘new work order’ (Gee et al. 1996), and ‘post-bureaucratic’ (Heckscher and Donnellon 1994). Workers no longer function simply as indi-viduals performing designated tasks in defined hierarchical structures, but rather take part in participatory practices and teamwork in a flexible relation to the ever changing organization. The changes in organizational culture and values are to a large extent changes in discourse practices. Teams have become the building blocks of the organization, often cross-disciplinary or cross-functional in nature, and workers are faced with the expectation of not only performing their work tasks but also being able to talk about their work practices as they relate to those of others, both within the organization and without (see, for example, Sarangi and Roberts 1999; Iedema and Scheeres 2003). Professionals are thus faced with new modes of collaboration requiring communicative skills as well as multiprofessional competencies. This ‘communicative mentality’ (Sarangi 2004) can be seen across social domains, in health and social care as well as in business organizations. Within this context, team decision making is becom-ing an increasingly crucial activity that needs to be understood within the framework of contemporary workplace reforms.

1.1 Studying organizations from a discourse analytic perspective The last decade has brought an increased interest in discourse and discourse analysis within the fields of organization and management studies (Boden 1994; Alvesson and Karreman 2000; Jablin and Putnam 2001; Grant et al. 2004). Organizations are increasingly seen as complex discursive formations where discursive practices are both ‘in’ organizations and productive of them (Taylor and van Every 2000; Cooren et al. 2006; Putnam and Nicotera 2009). Simultaneously, discourse and conversation analytic scholars have been study-ing the emergence of organization through talk since the early 1990s (Zim-mermann and Boden 1991; Drew and Heritage 1992; Boden 1994; Asmuss and Svennevig 2009), providing systematic insights into the social organiza-tion reflected in and produced by workplace interaction. Talk in professional settings has been treated from a range of perspectives in the discourse literature, and team talk, focussing on professionals’ interaction with each other, has gained increasing momentum. This intra- and interpro-

kristin halvorsen 275

fessional talk has typically been studied from either an ethnomethodological /conversation analytic approach or from a sociolinguistic/discourse analytic approach, the former exploring interaction order and sequential structures in team talk (Drew and Heritage 1992; Boden 1994; Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris 1997; Housley 1999, 2000a, 2000b; Kangasharju 2002; Poncini 2004; Arminen 2005; Clifton 2006; Kangasharju and Nikko 2009), and the latter focussing on issues such as identity and power (Iedema and Scheeres 2003; Holmes and Marra 2004; Holmes 2006; Aritz and Walker 2010). Taken together, these studies contribute to our understanding of meeting talk and team talk in various ways, but very few of them deal explicitly with decision making as such.

1.2 Decision making in organizationsDecision making has been a central topic in social sciences and organizational studies since Barnard’s (1938) study of managerial work and March and Simon’s (1958) theories of organizational behaviour. Within the last four to five decades, decision making has been a core issue in organizational analy-sis. Concepts such as bounded rationality and the satisficing vs. maximizing organization have become textbook references, nuancing simple models of rational human behaviour. The 1970s provided theories of power and deci-sion making, adding a political dimension to the understanding of decisions (Allison 1971; Pettigrew 1973), as well as exploring varieties and patterns in decision-making processes (Mintzberg et al. 1976). The ‘garbage can’ model (Cohen et al. 1972) brought in notions of ambiguity and contradiction to decision making, reacting to both rational and political models of organi-zational choice. With the Bradford studies (Hickson et al. 1986), the theme was explored empirically, providing explanatory dimensions to the otherwise description-oriented approaches. Also from the perspective of discourse analysis, traditional rationalistic approaches to decision making have been critiqued. More than four decades ago, Cicourel (1968) made visible how the organizational workings at a local level contribute to the way juvenile delinquents are perceived and defined. Later, Cicourel (1986) argued that decision making in organizational settings cannot be reduced exclusively to technical rules or context-free inference and knowledge. Local interaction and organizational resources and constraints are essential to this process. Silverman (1987), through his studies of doctor-patient interaction, showed the significant variability in the character of deci-sion making according to its site and a number of intervening variables. Boden (1994) showed how the persistent focus on cognitive elements of choice processes entirely ignores the temporal, spatial, sequential and inter-actional aspects that dominate organizational life. Furthermore, decisions as

276 team decision making in the workplace

outcomes are frequently confused with decision making as a process, with the presumption that the latter is related to the former in some unproblematic way. Decisions as such are, in fact, largely invisible as empirical objects; they only stand still as long as a static, snapshot observation is made. Decision making, on the other hand, can be located in the interactional sequences, in the ‘lamina-tions of actions and reactions’ (Boden 1994: 22) of the organization. Decision-making processes are often incremental activities consisting of many minor steps, and decisions can rarely be connected to one singular utterance. In his book on medical work, Atkinson (1995) criticizes both the experi-mental studies in cognitive psychology trying to simulate medical decision making as well as studies in social psychology of doctor-patient interaction. In the latter studies, neither the complexity of the decisions themselves nor the complexity of the organizational setting is acknowledged. The diversity of the modern clinic, Atkinson argues, reveals how decisions are dispersed in terms of both time and space, and involve a range of actors across these two dimen-sions. Decision making as a collective, organizational activity may be subject to debate, negotiation and revision, and ‘the actual events fracture the spatial and temporal frames implied by most decision-making models’ (Atkinson 1995: 58).1 Against this backdrop, this article will take a closer look at how the empiri-cally based discourse studies have explored decision making, specifically team decision making among professionals. The article will provide a systematic review of discourse analytic studies on team decision making in professional settings, foregrounding the insights discourse studies afford with regard to the characteristics of decision making in professional teams or groups.2 A systematic review of the discourse analytic literature on professionals’ deci-sion making in teams has not been undertaken, and filling this gap will give a stepping stone for future studies of interprofessional interaction and decision making. After describing the search procedure and selection criteria used, I will describe the search results in terms of empirical data, analytic approaches, research questions and findings. The reviewed studies will then be discussed in terms of discourse strategies used in team decision making vis-à-vis the nature of data and the conceptualization of decision making.

2 Search procedure

The procedures used for finding eligible studies included online database searches such as JSTOR, ISI Web of Science, ERIC, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. The reference lists of relevant articles and reviews were also searched. The fol-lowing terms were used for the searches, in various combinations: team, group, discourse, discourse analysis, interaction, decision* (will also find decisions and

kristin halvorsen 277

decision making), problem solving, problem* (will also find problem solving), meeting* (will also find meetings), organization, profession* (will also find pro-fessions and professional). Approaching the concept of decision making very broadly, a range of key words could lead us to studies that cover one or more aspects of decision-making processes, for example, terms such as discussion, deliberation, reason-ing, negotiation, compromise, assessment, judgement, or evaluation. However, in order to limit the scope of the review, two key concepts were chosen, decision making and problem solving (in the search: decision*, problem*, and problem solving). These were combined with key words related to the institutional setting (meeting*, organization, profession*, team, group) and the relevant analytic approach (discourse, discourse analysis, interaction), as well as the selection criteria described below. Through a review of a more specific selection of discourse analytic studies, focusing explicitly on decision making or problem solving, the empirical basis for ‘the accomplishment of decisions’ in groups of professionals can more readily be assessed. Any articles or books employing other key words would still be included if they mention the terms decision* or problem* either in the abstract or in the full text.

2.1 Selection criteriaStudies were included if they met the following criteria:

1. The study was directed at the verbal and/or nonverbal communication between groups of professionals in a workplace setting

2. The study involved audio or video recordings of interaction 3. Decision making or problem solving was treated as a core question in

analysing the data 4. The study involved research from the last 30 years, published in English.

Studies were excluded from the review when:

• the topic was attitudes about decision making or accounts of decision making based on interviews or questionnaires

• the data were dyads not groups, for example, performance appraisals • the study was a purely methodological or theoretical treatment of

decision making • the data were professional–client or professional–patient encounters,

public service encounters, teacher–student talk • the data were simulated encounters

The review thus concentrates on professionals’ interaction with other profes-sionals in authentic work situations, focusing on analysis of decision making.

278 team decision making in the workplace

2.2 Search resultsResults after searches in databases and reference lists gave 16 discourse studies on team decision making among professionals in a variety of institutional set-tings (see Table 1).

Table 1: Search results

Empirical site Studies found No of studiesBusiness Kwon, Clarke and Wodak (2009)

Menz (1999)Sanders (2007)Wasson (2000)Henderson and Jurma (1981)Huisman (2001)

6

Health and social care Cicourel (1990) Graham (2009) Hughes and Griffiths (1997)Måseide (2006)Nikander (2003)Hall, Slembrouck and Sarangi (2006)

6

Education Barnes (2007)Bartu (2003)Hjörne (2005)Mehan (1983)

4

Total = 16 studies reviewed

Eleven of the sixteen studies were published in the 2000s, three were pub-lished in the 1990s, and two in the 1980s, which tells us that there has been an increasing interest in the concept of decision making within discourse studies in the last decade.

3 Characteristics of the studies reviewed

Table 2 gives an overview of the reviewed studies in terms of titles, empirical data, analytic approaches, research questions, and findings.

3.1 Data and analytic approaches of the reviewed studiesThree of the sixteen studies (Wasson 2000; Huisman 2001; Barnes 2007) analyse the data using conversation analysis, two of which (Wasson 2000; Huisman 2001) supplement their analysis with ethnographic insights from fieldwork, observations, and interviews. Two of the studies (Hjörne 2005; Kwon et al. 2009) perform discourse analysis supplemented by longitudinal ethnography or case study. The remaining eleven studies are less specific about their ana-lytic approach, either labelling it discourse analysis or not labelling it at all. Six of these eleven (Cicourel 1990; Hughes and Griffiths 1997; Menz 1999; Bartu 2003; Måseide 2006; Graham 2009) explicitly draw on other forms of data as

kristin halvorsen 279

Tab

le 2

: Cha

ract

eris

tics

of th

e st

udie

s re

view

ed

Art

icle

Titl

eD

ata

Ap

pro

ach

Res

earc

h q

ues

tio

nFi

nd

ing

sBu

sine

ssH

ende

rson

and

Jurm

a

(198

1)

Dis

trib

utio

nal

and

sequ

entia

l

com

mun

icat

ion

stru

ctur

e: A

cas

e st

udy

in

orga

niza

tiona

l dec

isio

n

mak

ing.

Aud

iota

pes

of t

wo

one-

hour

mee

tings

of a

hea

lth

mai

nten

ance

org

aniz

atio

n’s

staff

and

a te

lep

hone

com

pan

y’s

sale

s

cons

ulta

nts.

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis.

A

naly

se d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

inte

ract

ion

in tw

o m

eetin

gs. C

lass

ify tu

rns

in te

rms

of c

onte

nt, p

atte

rns

of

freq

uenc

y an

d or

derin

g.

Spea

king

turn

s cl

assi

fied

into

con

tent

cate

gorie

s. D

emon

stra

tes

the

exis

tenc

e of

pat

tern

s fo

r dis

trib

utio

nal

and

sequ

entia

l str

uctu

re o

f typ

es o

f

stat

emen

ts.

Hui

sman

(200

1)

Dec

isio

n m

akin

g in

mee

tings

as

talk

-in-

inte

ract

ion.

Man

agem

ent t

eam

mee

tings

in

four

Dut

ch o

rgan

izat

ions

, vid

eo

tap

ed.

Con

vers

atio

n an

alys

is,

with

inte

rvie

ws,

and

par

ticip

ant

obse

rvat

ion.

Iden

tify

thos

e in

tera

ctio

ns a

nd

lingu

istic

feat

ures

whi

ch c

hara

cter

ize

deci

sion

mak

ing

in fo

ur D

utch

orga

niza

tions

.

A d

ecis

ion

rela

tes

to a

sses

smen

ts

and

form

ulat

ions

of a

futu

re s

tate

of a

ffai

rs. F

orm

ulat

ions

of s

tate

s of

affai

rs p

roje

ct c

erta

in o

utco

mes

of

the

inte

ract

ion

and

are

rela

ted

to th

e

iden

titie

s of

the

par

ticip

ants

.

Kwon

,

Cla

rke

and

Wod

ak

(200

9)

Org

aniz

atio

nal d

ecis

ion

mak

ing,

dis

cour

se, a

nd

pow

er: i

nteg

ratin

g

acro

ss c

onte

xts

and

scal

es.

Seni

or m

anag

emen

t tea

m

in a

mul

tinat

iona

l com

pan

y,

reco

rdin

gs o

f mee

tings

, em

ail

corr

esp

onde

nce

bet

wee

n

rese

arch

er a

nd in

form

ant.

Crit

ical

Dis

cour

se

Ana

lysi

s an

d

Dis

cour

se-H

isto

rical

App

roac

h w

ithin

long

itudi

nal

ethn

ogra

phy.

Dem

onst

rate

the

pot

entia

l

cont

ribut

ion

of a

n in

tegr

ated

app

roac

h to

CD

A th

at b

ridge

s m

acro

-

and

mic

ro-s

cale

s an

d co

ntex

ts w

ith

with

in a

bro

ader

eth

nogr

aphi

c st

udy.

Imp

act o

f diff

eren

t sca

les

of in

fluen

ce

and

cont

exts

on

deci

sion

out

com

es,

mac

ro a

nd m

icro

. The

em

erge

nt

natu

re o

f the

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g

pro

cess

.

Men

z (1

999)

‘Who

am

I go

nna

do th

is

with

?’: s

elf-

orga

niza

tion,

amb

igui

ty a

nd d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

in a

bus

ines

s

ente

rpris

e.

Extr

act f

rom

one

tech

nica

l

dep

artm

ent m

eetin

g in

a

com

put

er c

omp

any.

Fro

m

larg

er d

ata

corp

us w

ith

por

tab

le re

cord

er a

nd c

lip-

on m

icro

pho

nes

carr

ied

by

emp

loye

es. I

n-de

pth

inte

rvie

ws.

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis,

sup

ple

men

ted

with

inte

rvie

ws.

Illus

trat

es h

ow o

rgan

izat

ions

nee

d

to b

alan

ce b

etw

een

adap

tatio

n an

d

sust

aini

ng a

dap

tab

ility

, and

how

this

is p

redo

min

antl

y es

tab

lishe

d

and

solv

ed th

roug

h sp

ecifi

c ty

pes

of c

omm

unic

atio

n w

hich

can

be

desc

ribed

in d

isco

urse

ana

lytic

term

s.

Vagu

enes

s se

rves

the

pur

pos

e of

crea

ting

and

upho

ldin

g am

big

uity

and

ther

eby

pre

serv

es v

ario

us

optio

ns in

a d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

pro

cess

.

Vagu

enes

s, th

eref

ore,

is n

ot ju

st a

n

inte

rven

ing

varia

ble

that

sho

uld

be

avoi

ded

but a

con

stitu

tive

fact

or in

self-

orga

nizi

ng p

roce

sses

.

280 team decision making in the workplace

Art

icle

Titl

eD

ata

Ap

pro

ach

Res

earc

h q

ues

tio

nFi

nd

ing

sSa

nder

s

(200

7)

The

effec

t of

inte

ract

iona

l

com

pet

ence

on

grou

p

pro

ble

m s

olvi

ng.

Vide

otap

ed b

usin

ess

mee

ting

from

doc

umen

tary

film

.

Ethn

omet

hodo

logy

,

disc

ours

e an

alys

is,

neo-

rhet

oric

al.

The

way

the

par

ticip

ants

deb

ate

and

sett

le o

ne o

f the

cen

tral

issu

es in

the

give

n m

eetin

g.

Part

icip

atio

n in

gro

up d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

dep

ends

on

bei

ng a

ble

to

man

age

one’

s di

scou

rse

so a

s to

lay

grou

ndw

ork

for b

eing

ab

le to

say

wha

t one

bel

ieve

s w

ithou

t unw

ante

d

cons

eque

nces

.

Was

son

(200

0)

Cau

tion

and

cons

ensu

s

in A

mer

ican

bus

ines

s

mee

tings

.

Extr

acts

from

cro

ss-f

unct

iona

l

team

mee

tings

, aud

io-r

ecor

ded.

Con

vers

atio

n an

alys

is,

ethn

ogra

phi

c an

d

lingu

istic

fiel

dwor

k.

The

way

s in

whi

ch c

autio

usne

ss is

exer

cise

d to

ach

ieve

con

sens

us in

Am

eric

an b

usin

ess

mee

tings

.

‘Rev

ersa

ls’ i

dent

ified

as

spec

ific

turn

pat

tern

s in

face

-sav

ing

stra

tegi

es

aim

ed a

t con

sens

us.

Hea

lth a

nd

soci

al c

are

Cic

oure

l

(199

0)

The

inte

grat

ion

of

dist

ribut

ed k

now

ledg

e

in c

olla

bor

ativ

e m

edic

al

diag

nosi

s.

Lab

roun

d in

uni

vers

ity

hosp

ital

(dat

a p

rese

nted

in C

icou

rel

1987

a, 1

987b

).

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis,

ethn

ogra

phi

c da

ta.

Exam

ines

the

disc

ours

e th

at

occu

rs a

s m

edic

al e

xper

ts e

valu

ate

clin

ical

evi

denc

e in

ord

er to

arr

ive

at a

sat

isfa

ctor

y di

agno

sis

and

trea

tmen

t pla

n.

Med

ical

dec

isio

n m

akin

g ar

ises

out

of s

ocia

l int

erac

tion

as p

hysi

cian

s

exch

ange

ob

serv

atio

ns a

nd a

sses

s

thei

r cre

dib

ility

.

Gra

ham

(200

9)

Hos

pita

lk: P

olite

ness

and

hier

arch

ical

str

uctu

res

in in

terd

isci

plin

ary

disc

harg

e ro

unds

.

One

inte

rdis

cip

linar

y di

scha

rge

roun

ds m

eetin

g, ta

pe-

reco

rded

,

one

inte

rvie

w.

Ethn

ogra

phi

c

disc

ours

e an

alyt

ic

app

roac

h.

Expl

ores

pol

itene

ss s

trat

egie

s us

ed

by m

embe

rs o

f int

erdi

scip

linar

y ca

re

givi

ng te

ams

to n

egot

iate

pat

ient

car

e

deci

sion

s w

ithin

the

hosp

ital h

iera

rchy

Inst

itutio

nal h

iera

rchi

cal s

truc

ture

s

gove

rn h

ow c

areg

iver

s in

tera

ct.

Miti

gatin

g st

rate

gies

for c

halle

ngin

g

care

dec

isio

ns in

a p

olite

way

.

Hal

l,

Slem

bro

uck

and

Sara

ngi

(200

6)

Inte

r-pr

ofes

sion

al

deci

sion

mak

ing

in a

cas

e

conf

eren

ce.

Chi

ld p

rote

ctio

n co

nfer

ence

, tap

e-

reco

rded

.

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis

.D

evel

ops

the

conc

ept o

f cha

ract

er

cons

truc

tion

and

its re

latio

nshi

p to

cate

goriz

atio

n by

con

side

ring

how

the

clie

nt is

dep

icte

d an

d as

sess

ed in

a so

cial

wor

k m

eetin

g.

Cha

ract

er w

ork

as a

pre

curs

or

to d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

and

as a

n

imp

orta

nt m

echa

nism

thro

ugh

whi

ch

cate

goriz

atio

n an

d b

lam

e is

ach

ieve

d.

kristin halvorsen 281

Art

icle

Titl

eD

ata

Ap

pro

ach

Res

earc

h q

ues

tio

nFi

nd

ing

sH

ughe

s an

d

Griffi

ths

(199

7)

‘Rul

ing

in’ a

nd ‘r

ulin

g

out’:

Tw

o ap

pro

ache

s to

the

mic

ro-r

atio

ning

of

heal

th c

are.

Car

diac

cat

hete

risat

ion

conf

eren

ces

and

neur

o-

reha

bili

tatio

ns a

dmis

sion

s

conf

eren

ces,

ob

serv

atio

n an

d

audi

o ta

pe.

Ethn

ogra

phy

and

disc

ours

e an

alys

is.

Exp

lore

clin

ical

reas

onin

g fo

r pat

ient

sele

ctio

n in

car

diac

sur

gery

and

neur

o-re

hab

ilita

tion.

As

doct

ors

deci

de w

hat r

esou

rces

to

allo

cate

to in

divi

dual

pat

ient

s, th

e

disc

ours

e ‘fr

ame’

shi

fts

to a

ddre

ss

patie

nt c

hara

cter

istic

s of

a s

ocia

l

or m

oral

nat

ure.

Eva

luat

ion

of

‘des

ervi

ngne

ss’ is

rela

ted

to w

ork

orga

niza

tion.

Mås

eide

(200

6)

The

deep

pla

y of

med

icin

e: D

iscu

rsiv

e an

d

colla

bor

ativ

e p

roce

ssin

g

of e

vide

nce

in m

edic

al

pro

ble

m s

olvi

ng.

One

med

ical

inte

rvie

w, a

mor

ning

con

fere

nce

of th

e

thor

acic

war

d, a

war

d m

eetin

g

calle

d th

e th

orac

ic m

eetin

g,

audi

o re

cord

ings

and

fiel

d no

tes.

Ethn

ogra

phic

stu

dy,

disc

ours

e an

alys

is.

Look

s at

the

pro

duct

ion

pro

cess

es

and

use

of m

edic

al e

vide

nce

and

the

amb

iguo

us m

eani

ng o

f thi

s te

rm in

pra

ctic

al m

edic

ine.

Evid

ence

is a

n in

tera

ctio

nal p

rodu

ct,

disc

ursi

vely

gen

erat

ed a

nd it

s

app

licab

ility

requ

ires

disc

ours

e.

Nik

ande

r

(200

3)

The

abse

nt c

lient

:

Cas

e de

scrip

tion

and

deci

sion

mak

ing

in

inte

rpro

fess

iona

l

mee

tings

.

Inte

rpro

fess

iona

l mee

tings

deci

ding

on

elde

rly

clie

nts’

long

-

term

car

e, v

ideo

tap

ed, r

esea

rche

r

not p

rese

nt.

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis.

Exam

ines

and

exp

licat

es s

ome

rout

ine

feat

ures

of d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

and

clie

nt c

ateg

oris

atio

n w

ithin

elde

rly

care

in th

e so

cial

car

e an

d

heal

th s

ecto

r.

The

abse

nt c

lient

is d

iscu

rsiv

ely

draf

ted

and

talk

ed in

to b

eing

thro

ugh

desc

riptio

ns a

nd c

ateg

oriz

atio

ns.

Educ

atio

nBa

rnes

(200

7)

Form

ulat

ions

and

the

faci

litat

ion

of c

omm

on

agre

emen

t in

mee

tings

talk

.

Biw

eekl

y cu

rric

ulum

mee

tings

in a

med

ical

sch

ool,

4 m

eetin

gs,

vide

o re

cord

ed, r

esea

rche

r not

pre

sent

.

Con

vers

atio

n an

alys

is.

Ana

lysi

s fo

cusi

ng o

n th

e se

quen

tial

envi

ronm

ent o

f can

dida

te p

re-

clos

ing

form

ulat

ions

, dem

onst

ratin

g

the

bas

ic fo

rmat

of p

rodu

ctio

n an

d

its in

tera

ctio

nal c

onse

quen

ces.

Can

dida

te p

re-c

losi

ngs

used

by

chai

rper

sons

to c

lose

the

bus

ines

s-

at-h

and,

faci

litat

e th

e m

ove

on to

the

next

top

ic, a

nd e

stab

lish

shar

ed

unde

rsta

ndin

g in

crem

enta

lly.

Bart

u (2

003)

D

ecis

ions

and

dec

isio

n

mak

ing

in th

e Is

tanb

ul

exp

lora

tory

pra

ctic

e

exp

erie

nce.

13 h

ours

of a

udio

reco

rdin

gs o

f

six

exp

lora

tory

pra

ctic

e gr

oup

mee

tings

at a

teac

hers

’ cen

tre.

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis

with

sup

plem

enta

ry

data

suc

h as

dia

ry

note

s an

d do

cum

ents

.

Enqu

iry

into

the

natu

re o

f the

deci

sion

s ta

ken

and

the

deci

sion

-

mak

ing

pro

cess

em

plo

yed

in th

e

grou

p m

eetin

gs.

Dec

isio

ns-m

akin

g ep

isod

es

char

acte

rized

by

initi

atio

n, n

egot

iatio

n

(cla

rifica

tion,

con

trib

utio

n, a

ccep

tanc

e,

reje

ctio

n), a

nd fi

naliz

atio

n. T

hree

type

s

of d

ecis

ions

: con

tent

, pro

cedu

re

and

aim

s.

282 team decision making in the workplace

Art

icle

Titl

eD

ata

Ap

pro

ach

Res

earc

h q

ues

tio

nFi

nd

ing

sH

jörn

e

(200

5)

Neg

otia

ting

the

‘Pro

ble

m-c

hild

’ in

Scho

ol.

Cas

e st

udy

of o

ne b

oy o

ver

two

year

s, 1

2 p

upil

wel

fare

conf

eren

ces,

ob

serv

ed a

nd a

udio

reco

rded

, min

utes

of m

eetin

gs,

info

rmal

con

vers

atio

ns,

emai

l.

Long

itudi

nal c

ase

stud

y, d

isco

urse

anal

ysis

.

How

the

disc

ursi

ve w

ork

in th

e

conf

eren

ces

pro

ceed

s, a

nd h

ow th

e

inst

itutio

nal r

epre

sent

ativ

es a

ttem

pt

to a

chie

ve c

onse

nt fo

r an

asse

ssm

ent.

Cate

goriz

atio

n in

volv

ed in

med

ical

diag

nosi

s w

orks

as

an e

xpla

natio

n fo

r

diffi

culti

es in

sch

ool a

nd a

s a

solu

tion

for p

edag

ogic

al in

terv

entio

ns a

nd

allo

catio

n of

reso

urce

s. T

he m

edic

al

cate

gory

pla

ces

the

prob

lem

in th

e

child

, and

relie

ves

pare

nts

and

scho

ol

of g

uilt.

Meh

an

(198

3)

The

role

of l

angu

age

and

the

lang

uage

of r

ole

in in

stitu

tiona

l dec

isio

n

mak

ing.

Mul

ti-p

rofe

ssio

nal c

omm

ittee

mee

tings

rega

rdin

g p

lace

men

t of

stud

ents

into

sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n

pro

gram

s. O

bse

rved

and

vide

otap

ed.

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis.

W

hat d

iscu

rsiv

e an

d or

gani

zatio

nal

arra

ngem

ents

pro

vide

for t

he

par

ticul

ar m

anne

r of m

akin

g

deci

sion

s?

Psyc

holo

gist

s an

d di

stric

t

repr

esen

tativ

es’ a

ccou

nts

prev

ail

over

thos

e of

cla

ssro

om te

ache

rs

and

pare

nts.

Edu

cato

rs s

eem

to

pres

ent,

rath

er th

an d

ebat

e, d

ecis

ions

;

deci

sion

s ar

e cr

eden

tiale

d, n

ot

nego

tiate

d.

kristin halvorsen 283

well, such as interviews or observations. In total, eleven of the sixteen studies reviewed rely on ethnographic insights for their analysis of the discourse data. Five of the sixteen studies (Mehan 1983; Huisman 2001; Nikander 2003; Barnes 2007; Sanders 2007) use videotaped data, seven (Henderson and Jurma 1981; Hughes and Griffiths 1997; Menz 1999; Wasson 2000; Bartu 2003; Måseide 2006) use audiotaped data, and four studies (Cicourel 1990; Hall et al. 2006; Graham 2009; Kwon et al. 2009) simply state that their data is recorded without specifying what kind of recording has been done. All sixteen studies are based on recordings of meetings. Only two of them (Nikander 2003; Barnes 2007) have recorded the meetings without the researcher being present.

3.2 Research questions and findings by empirical domain

3.2.1 BusinessAmong the six studies that deal with data from a business setting, two are con-cerned specifically with what influences the decision outcome. While Sanders (2007) focuses on individual discussants’ competence in managing their own turns at talk as crucial for the decision outcome, Kwon et al. (2009) discuss the impact of both macro- and micro-level processes. Sanders shows how a decision turned against the interest of some participants because of a mis-judgement by one of them about what should come next at a particular point in the interaction. Kwon et al. (2009) make a case for a broader longitudinal approach allowing for capturing shifts in thinking over time. They illustrate at one extreme the effect of macro-level structural influences such as organiza-tional politics on the micro-level interactions between agents, and at the other extreme, the way in which micro-level agents were able to act back on some of these influences through resourceful argumentation and negotiation. Both these studies involve senior management team meetings. Also Huisman (2001) studies management teams and she defines decision-making episodes as situations in which participants formulate and assess states of affairs and a decision relates to assessments and formulations of a future state of affairs. These formulations project certain outcomes of the interac-tion and are related to the identities of the participants, but what interactional procedures will count as commitment to the future actions is dependent on the procedural and interpretative norms to which the participants are orient-ing. Henderson and Jurma (1981) look at discussants’ speaking turns and classify them into one of the following content categories: information giving, requests for information, opinion giving, requests for opinion, communica-tion facilitators, communication inhibitors, and metadiscussional statements. Results demonstrate the existence of patterns for the frequency of particular

Art

icle

Titl

eD

ata

Ap

pro

ach

Res

earc

h q

ues

tio

nFi

nd

ing

sH

jörn

e

(200

5)

Neg

otia

ting

the

‘Pro

ble

m-c

hild

’ in

Scho

ol.

Cas

e st

udy

of o

ne b

oy o

ver

two

year

s, 1

2 p

upil

wel

fare

conf

eren

ces,

ob

serv

ed a

nd a

udio

reco

rded

, min

utes

of m

eetin

gs,

info

rmal

con

vers

atio

ns,

emai

l.

Long

itudi

nal c

ase

stud

y, d

isco

urse

anal

ysis

.

How

the

disc

ursi

ve w

ork

in th

e

conf

eren

ces

pro

ceed

s, a

nd h

ow th

e

inst

itutio

nal r

epre

sent

ativ

es a

ttem

pt

to a

chie

ve c

onse

nt fo

r an

asse

ssm

ent.

Cate

goriz

atio

n in

volv

ed in

med

ical

diag

nosi

s w

orks

as

an e

xpla

natio

n fo

r

diffi

culti

es in

sch

ool a

nd a

s a

solu

tion

for p

edag

ogic

al in

terv

entio

ns a

nd

allo

catio

n of

reso

urce

s. T

he m

edic

al

cate

gory

pla

ces

the

prob

lem

in th

e

child

, and

relie

ves

pare

nts

and

scho

ol

of g

uilt.

Meh

an

(198

3)

The

role

of l

angu

age

and

the

lang

uage

of r

ole

in in

stitu

tiona

l dec

isio

n

mak

ing.

Mul

ti-p

rofe

ssio

nal c

omm

ittee

mee

tings

rega

rdin

g p

lace

men

t of

stud

ents

into

sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n

pro

gram

s. O

bse

rved

and

vide

otap

ed.

Dis

cour

se a

naly

sis.

W

hat d

iscu

rsiv

e an

d or

gani

zatio

nal

arra

ngem

ents

pro

vide

for t

he

par

ticul

ar m

anne

r of m

akin

g

deci

sion

s?

Psyc

holo

gist

s an

d di

stric

t

repr

esen

tativ

es’ a

ccou

nts

prev

ail

over

thos

e of

cla

ssro

om te

ache

rs

and

pare

nts.

Edu

cato

rs s

eem

to

pres

ent,

rath

er th

an d

ebat

e, d

ecis

ions

;

deci

sion

s ar

e cr

eden

tiale

d, n

ot

nego

tiate

d.

284 team decision making in the workplace

types of statement (distributional structure) and the ordering of types of state-ment (sequential structure), and the patterning varied between the meetings. The remaining two studies in the business domain are less focussed on decision outcomes as they deal with discursive aspects of earlier phases of the decision-making process. Wasson (2000) describes the balancing act of mitigat-ing disagreement in American business meetings, a context characterized by surveillance culture and consensus-oriented decision making. ‘Reversals’ are identified as specific turn patterns aimed at consensus. In a similar vein, Menz (1999) illustrates another discursive balancing act in the context of a self-orga-nizing heterarchy involving the maintenance of ambiguity. Vagueness is seen not just as an intervening variable that should be avoided, but as a discursive resource for preserving options in a decision-making process. These two articles focus on team meetings at a departmental level in the organization.

3.2.2 Health and social careFive of the six articles within the context of health and social care relate to aspects of professional reasoning, with two focussing on medical evidence and assessment of medical information and three focussing on patient character-ization in the decision-making process. Cicourel (1990) illustrates how physi-cians typically assess the adequacy of medical information on the basis of the perceived credibility of the source. Novices and experts are thus constrained and guided by their general and local knowledge of social structure. Måseide (2006) approaches medical evidence in a similar vein, as an interactional product generated discursively and requiring discourse for its applicability. However, medical evidence requires more than medical discourse and pro-fessional considerations. According to Måseide, it has an emergent quality in that it has to be made practically useful in the collaborative setting by the participants in order to arrive at conclusions about diagnoses and treatments. Patient characterization is central in Nikander’s (2003) discussion of how the absent client is discursively drafted and talked into being through descriptions and categorizations. She points to ongoing tensions in client categorization vis-à-vis moral, economic, and practical argumentation, and she suggests that there is a discrepancy between the available latitude for categorization and decision making that would justifiably accommodate the heterogeneity of clienthood. Hughes and Griffiths (1997) explore clinical reasoning for patient selection in two different hospital settings and show how the discourse frame shifts to address patients’ social and moral characteristics and ‘deservingness’ in decid-ing what resources to allocate to individual patients. The decision outcome of this strategy is very different in the two work organizations, one leading to ‘ruling out’ the patient and the other to ‘ruling in’, and the authors suggest that this reflects differences in the work organization of the two specialties. Finally,

kristin halvorsen 285

Hall, Slembrouck and Sarangi (2006) look at how the client is depicted and assessed in a social work meeting. Developing the concept of character con-struction, they see character work as a precursor to decision making. The final article on healthcare is concerned with institutional hierarchical structures and how they govern caregivers’ interactional routines. Graham (2009) shows how multiple hierarchies are at play in a hospital and how this is manifest in partici-pants’ complex strategies for challenging care decisions in a polite way.

3.2.3 EducationTwo of the four articles within education look at school committee meetings. Mehan (1983) studies a committee of educators and allied healthcare profes-sionals deciding on placement of students into special education programs. Mehan illustrates how psychologists’ and district representatives’ accounts prevail over those of classroom teachers and parents. The ‘professional report’ is accepted without question despite the presence of highly technical vocabulary. Hjörne (2005) examines pupil welfare conferences where one child’s problems in the school are discussed and decisions are made regarding the appropriate institutional measures. Hjörne shows the efforts made by the professionals to convince the parents of the need for an assessment and a diagnosis. The categorization involved in diagnosing the child works both as an explanation for difficulties in school and as a solution for pedagogical interventions and allocation of resources. Bartu (2003) looks at exploratory practice groups at a teachers’ centre and primarily describes the nature of the decisions taken and characterizes deci-sion-making episodes in terms of the following phases: ‘initiation’, ‘negotia-tion’ (clarification, contribution, acceptance, rejection), and ‘finalization’. The decisions made by the group are described as related to three areas: content, procedure, and aims. Barnes (2007), on the other hand, examines curricu-lum development meetings in a medical school and shows how a sub-class of formulations, candidate pre-closings, are used by chairpersons to close the business-at-hand and facilitate the move on to the next topic. They also help to establish, record, and preserve shared understanding incrementally in a time-limited, task-focused environment.

4 Discussion

In the following I will discuss some of the key discourse strategies that are deployed in the reviewed studies, followed by reflections on the nature of data in studies of team decision making. I end with a discussion of the contribution of the reviewed studies to the conceptualization of decision making.

286 team decision making in the workplace

4.1 Discourse strategies in team decision makingThe studies show a range of different discursive aspects related to decision making, and these are all seen as interactional strategies influencing the decision-making process in one way or another, interpreted and understood in relation to the given institutional context. In what follows, the reviewed studies will be discussed in terms of the assessment of information, the reach-ing of agreement, and the managing of disagreement, in addition to the issue of organizational structures manifested in interaction.

4.1.1 Assessing informationAssessing various forms of information or evidence is a significant part of team decision making. Two articles within the healthcare domain focus on the production and assessment of medical evidence. Cicourel (1990) describes how medical decision making arises out of social interaction as physicians exchange observations and assess their credibility. Måseide (2006) emphasizes how medical evidence has an emerging quality, being both generated and made applicable discursively by the participants. This amounts to challenging the traditional concepts of medical evidence as being objective and factual, and shows how interaction plays a crucial part in establishing something as evidence and thus as a valid basis for diagnoses and treatments. In three of the reviewed studies, character work and client categorizations are deemed as key strategies that have an impact on the assessment phase and the decision outcome. Hall, Slembrouck and Sarangi (2006) see character work as an important mechanism through which categorization and blame allocation is achieved, whereas Hughes and Griffiths (1997) describe how patient characteristics of a social and moral nature provides evaluations of ‘deservingness’. Nikander (2003) shows how client categorizations indeed restrict the decision-making potential as the categorizations do not routinely acknowledge the range and heterogeneity of clients’ situations and needs. It is worth noting that these strategies are most prevalent in the contexts dealing with health and social care, and are not found in the business context. This is not surprising, given the nature of the decisions made in the different con-texts, but one could imagine similar strategies being used in business settings, for example, in discussions concerning hiring and firing. In contrast to these studies on the assessment of information, Menz (1999) shows how the option generating phase of decision making can benefit from using discourse strategies that maintain ambiguity and keep choices open. Contrary to established ideas about clarity and the production of shared understanding in work groups, he claims that vagueness can be employed as a productive discursive resource to keep options available for a longer period. The data supporting this is gathered in a business context where human lives

kristin halvorsen 287

or comfort are not at stake, but perhaps it is not inconceivable that there are situations also in a healthcare context where the development of options in the decision-making process might benefit from using similar discourse strategies.3

4.1.2 Reaching agreement and managing disagreementsOnly two articles deal specifically with strategies for reaching agreement in team meetings. Barnes (2007) shows in the educational context how candi-date pre-closings are used as a strategy for reaching agreement and preserving shared understanding. Huisman (2001) shows how formulations of future states of affairs are jointly constructed in business team talk and also jointly assessed. These formulations project a certain outcome, although this cer-tainly is contingent and is constantly under threat of change and negotiation. Participation frameworks differ from group to group, so which and whose assessments are necessary and needed in order to decide vary across groups. Not all assessments presented will inform the decision outcome. Related to the ability to get one’s own agenda through in team decision making, Sanders (2007) provides a convincing example of how participants’ turn-taking competence can impact the decision outcome. Participants’ ability to express opinions and contribute towards a decision, then, is not merely a question of content, of what they believe to be true or have aspirations to achieve; participants are constrained by their own ability to manage their speaker rights within the boundaries of what has already been said, the content and the sequentiality of previous interactional turns. A decision process aiming for reaching agreement will also involve the management of disagreement, and this is discussed in two of the reviewed studies. In Wasson’s (2000) study of American business meetings, participants make extensive efforts to mitigate their disagreements through face-saving strategies such as reversals. These strategies appeared to represent attempts to reduce the threat to the face of their interlocutors as well as their own face. Similarly, Graham (2009) shows participants’ use of complex strategies for challenging care decisions within the hospital hierarchy. Mitigation strategies are seen as an integral part of the communicative process within this specific institutional hierarchy.4

4.1.3 Organizational hierarchy manifested in interactionThe mitigation strategies as discussed by Wasson (2000) and Graham (2009) are closely related to the institutional context within which the interaction takes place, and both these studies relate their findings to contextual charac-teristics: Wasson in terms of American business meetings characterized by surveillance culture and consensus-oriented decision making, and Graham in terms of multiple organizational hierarchies within the hospital. The influence

288 team decision making in the workplace

of organizational structure and hierarchy on use of interactional strategies is treated in several of the studies. In education, Mehan (1983) shows how pro-fessionals’ reports are accepted without question in a school committee. He shows how decisions are credentialed rather than negotiated, as the institu-tional hierarchy affords selected professionals to present rather than debate decisions. Two decades later, Hjörne (2005) echoes these findings, showing the struggle between the voice of the institution and the voice of everyday life, as one boy’s needs are being assessed. Cicourel (1990) demonstrates, in a hospital setting, how the perceived credibility of medical information is related to orga-nizational hierarchy, and how both novices and experts are constrained and guided by their general and local knowledge of social (institutional) structure. Also in the hospital setting, Hughes and Griffiths (1997) show how shifts in discourse frame to patient ‘deservingness’ actually lead to opposite conclusions in two different hospital scenarios, with one allocating resources to the patient and another refraining from doing so. The same discourse strategies, in other words, do not lead to same outcomes within different organizational structures. The fact that so many of the studies employ ethnographic data to supple-ment the discourse data underscores that there is an awareness of the inter-connectedness of structure and agency, and how micro-level interactions need to be seen in relation to the macro-level structures that surround them. Most explicitly, Kwon et al. (2009) demonstrate the macro- and micro-dialectics over an extended period of time, and thus explicitly address the emergent nature of decision-making processes.

4.2 The nature of data in studies of decision makingStudies of professional discourse tend to focus on the interactional episodes and on selected transcripts as manifestations of events. But as we see in the reviewed articles, there seems to be an increasing focus on extended extracts, on ethnographic descriptions, and on more contextual analysis of the data, allowing the researcher to consider selections of discourse as these form part of the larger ongoing organizational interaction. However, only two of the reviewed studies (Hjörne 2005; Kwon et al. 2009) take a longitudinal ethno-graphic approach, allowing the researchers to follow shifts in discourse over time and as such explore the emergent nature of decision making.

4.2.1 Meetings as dataAs meetings are both locally and temporally limited, they provide an acces-sible and convenient site for discourse researchers to study professional talk and organizational practices. Meetings can also be seen as key organizational phenomena, as complex social events that organizational members orient to and take part in. All the 16 studies are based on recordings of meetings, and

kristin halvorsen 289

no other discourse data, such as informal talk or ‘behind the scenes’ interac-tion, is analyzed. In Menz (1999), a larger corpus was collected by carrying portable recorders and clip-on microphones. This allowed for capturing talk in corridors and offices and following certain topics or issues as these circu-lated within the organization. This data, however, was not analyzed in terms of decision making, but one can easily imagine that capturing this kind of ‘moving talk’ could reveal important aspects of decision making. Organiza-tional decisions are surely not all made within the confines of a meeting with all relevant parties present. Organizational reality will in most cases prove to be more complex and ‘messy’, involving both power dynamics and pragmatic choices in terms of decision making.

4.3 Conceptualization of decision makingAs mentioned, the concept of decision making has been widely discussed in the social sciences, both in terms of its definitions as well as how it can or should be studied. With this in mind, it is interesting to explore how the reviewed discourse studies treat the concept of decision making in empirical work. Sig-nificantly, of the 16 reviewed studies, 10 (62.5%) do not mention or discuss the concept of decision or decision making directly at all. In these cases, decision making seems to be treated implicitly as the purpose or the outcome of the interaction, while the analysis is primarily related to discourse analytic phe-nomena under other headings (categorizations, sequential structure, turn clas-sifications, politeness, etc.). Of the six studies that do discuss the concept, two emphasize the phases that characterize decision-making episodes in their data (Wasson 2000; Bartu 2003), such as proposal, evaluation, and consensus. This is, however, done without engaging with theories of decision making or exist-ing definitions of such phases. This leaves us with four remaining studies (25%) that discuss the concept of decision making. These four studies (Mehan 1983; Cicourel 1990; Huisman 2001; Kwon et al. 2009) all emphasize how processes other than the cognitive ones are significant in decision making. Mehan (1983) contrasts traditional cognitive approaches by focusing on the role linguistic processes of persuasion play in the cognitive activity of decision making. He argues that through such an approach the relationship between linguistic processes, cognitive activities, and social structures are made more explicit. In a similar vein, Cicourel (1990) shows how decision making is a socially complex process, extending beyond the cognitive complexity that has long been recognized in medical decision making. The fact that professionals assess the credibility of their source of information is significant, and this is both related to structural aspects such as credentials, status and reputation, and to communicative processes. Cognitive processes alone cannot account for the medical reasoning and decision making taking place. Kwon et al. (2009) add

290 team decision making in the workplace

to this picture by emphasizing decision making as an organizational process, and they argue for going beyond simple descriptions of interaction concerning ‘who uses language, how, why and when’. This requires a broader contextualiza-tion of the discursive events involving both micro- and macro-level analysis, and Kwon et al. argue for a specific methodological approach that can bridge these levels of analysis. Huisman (2001) takes a conversation analytic approach and proposes an interactional definition of decisions. This allows for systematically exploring the processes through which ‘sense’ and ‘satisfying solution’ is produced and how organizational members collaboratively create the future of their organi-zation. An utterance can be considered to ‘do a decision’ only if the commit-ment of relevant participants to a future state of affairs is achieved, and the formulation and content of decisions are invariably connected to the situa-tions in which they are produced. What counts as a decision thus depends on the communicative norms of the group. Huisman also argues for confronting decision-making theories with empirical data from actual talk ‘so that our understanding of decision-making is enhanced’ (Huisman 2001: 84). Many of the reviewed studies must be said to lack such an aspiration, as very few of them engage with decision-making theories at all. While they clearly contribute to our understanding of interaction and team talk, the lack of engagement with existing theories of decision making leaves the studies less powerful. One can discuss whether discourse studies are missing out on explanatory potentials characteristic of broader social and organizational approaches. By not relating to, for example, issues of power and complexity in organizational life, discourse studies risk being read as limited accounts of professional work. Statements such as ‘The fundamental goal of most meetings is surely that all the participants [...] would agree to the outcome decided’ (Barnes 2007: 291) shows a poorly nuanced understanding of the complexity of work-life relations and strategies, as it assumes an organization that functions fully rationally with members that are not involved in power games or relational issues. Surely, experience of professional life can tell us that the fundamental goal of meetings can be far from consensus and agreement, even far from reaching decisions in the first place. Social theories of deci-sion making have long been concerned with understanding the less rational aspects of organizing, and discourse studies of decision making would benefit from orienting to such nuanced perspectives.

5 Conclusion

Decision making and rationality are central aspects of the bureaucratic organization, both in terms of organizational structures, procedures, and

kristin halvorsen 291

management strategies. Understanding organizational behaviour requires an understanding of the various forms of decision making achieved and aspired to in a given professional setting. Within discourse studies, decision making is approached at the interactional level, and the reviewed studies have shown a range of topics and sites for professional team decision making. Decisions are produced and negotiated through talk and interaction, and studying them as such reveals discursive practices as they are employed by the participants and as they shape successive interaction and turns at talk. As Boden (1994: 182) states, ‘decisions are virtually never stand-alone affairs but rather are part of a sequence of “tinkering” with some organizational problem or policy’. Although the reviewed studies do not talk about decisions in these terms, they do in a way show precisely this ‘adjustment’ process through analysis of inter-action at a micro-level. As they freeze a moment’s interaction and describe the mechanisms and strategies at play, they show the ‘tinkering’ in practice, and how professionals together solve problems and decide in a pragmatic, situated manner. Findings from this review show there is a need for further empirical studies on decision making, fleshing out our understanding of the situatedness of deci-sion making in various contexts. The review has identified a variety of profes-sional contexts, but few studies in each domain. There is room for both a larger number of studies as well as a broader range of empirical domains. In terms of design, the studies underpin the necessary emphasis on contextualizing the discourse data through ethnographic insights. However, the meeting is the only site where interaction data is gathered and analyzed. This leaves a void in terms of understanding decision-making processes as they progress across other sites. Informal talk, back stage talk, or talk ‘on the move’ are still left unexplored, but the move towards more ethnographic methods might open up further analytic opportunities for future studies. The reviewed studies illustrate how decision making is bounded not only rationally, but also socially and interactionally. The discourse strategies identified in the reviewed studies contribute to an understanding of the situated nature of decision making and provide nuanced descriptions of discursive balancing acts in various institutional contexts. The review also shows that there is a need for discourse studies to engage more directly with established scholarship on the concept of decision and decision making in order to make the results both more relevant and nuanced.

Notes1. Cicourel (1968/1995), Silverman (1987), Boden (1994), and Atkinson (1995)

are not included in the review as they are book-length monographs dedicated to larger theoretical issues: Cicourel deals with the social production of delin-

292 team decision making in the workplace

quency through the organizational workings of juvenile law enforcement and justice; Silverman examines the variability of doctor-patient interaction related to patient medical career and treatment trajectory; Boden discusses the relationship between talk and social structure and the argument for a grounded study of talk in organizations; Atkinson focuses on how medical work and medical knowledge are enacted through the rhetorical forms of the clinic. They all contribute greatly to the theoretical discussion of approaches to organizational decision making. See also Sarangi and Linell (forthcoming).

2. From a discourse analytic perspective, there is a range of studies and approaches that can shed light on professional interaction and decision-making processes. For this review, however, the purpose has been to examine empirical findings relating explicitly to decision making among groups of professionals. This means that a large number of studies will not be included in this review, for example, studies dealing with shared decision making in the clinic setting where patient participation is a core issue rather than interpro-fessional team talk (Collin et al. 2007; Edwards and Elwyn 2009).

3. Also related to assessing information in team talk is Sarangi (1998), who examines information as evidence, related to case construction in social work, showing how the evidential status of information is related to its reportability. Housley (2000a) makes a strong case for the situated and emergent character of knowledge in multidisciplinary team interaction, realized through local and interactional accomplishments. Cooren (2004) focuses on the production of collective cognition and orientation through the mutual adjustments of conversational contributions leading to specific operations such as decisions. Bailey et al. (2006) study how bridge teamwork is accomplished, organized and sustained through a confirmatory form of talk that is utilized in order to avoid confusion and maritime disaster.

4. Kangasharju (2002) examines alignment in disagreements in committee meet-ings and how formation of alliances can display a collective sense of consensus or create problems for a single participant pursuing her or his point. Kan-gasharju and Nikko (2009) discuss the function of shared laughter in workplace meetings as, among others, affiliative action or accomplishing remedial work.

Acknowledgements

This review is part of my PhD project entitled ‘Decision Making in Multiprofes-sional Team Interaction’ at NTNU Social Research and Department of Language and Communication Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The project is funded by the Center for Integrated Operations in the Petroleum Industry, a center for research-based innovation at NTNU and SINTEF, Norway. I wish to express my thanks to Prof. Srikant Sarangi and the anonymous review-ers for their critical comments on earlier drafts of the article.

kristin halvorsen 293

About the authorKristin Halvorsen is a PhD researcher at NTNU Social Research and Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her main research focus is team decision making in an operational business setting characterized by advanced technolo-gies and disciplinary heterogeneity. Her research interests include challenges of modern work life, workplace interaction, collaborative work, and leadership.

ReferencesAdler, P. S., Kwon, S.-W. and Heckscher, C. (2008) Professional work: The emergence of

collaborative community. Organization Science 19 (2): 359–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0293

Allison, G. T. (1971) The Essence of Decision. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000) Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations 53 (9): 1125–1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726700539002

Aritz, J. and Walker, R. C. (2010) Cognitive organization and identity maintenance in multicultural teams: A discourse analysis of decision-making meetings. Journal of Business Communication 47 (1): 20–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943609340669

Arminen, I. (2005) Institutional Interaction. Studies of Talk at Work. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Asmuss, B. and Svennevig, J. (2009) Meeting talk: An introduction. Journal of Business Communication 46 (1): 3–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943608326761

Atkinson, P. (1995) Medical Talk and Medical Work. London: Sage.

Bailey, N., Housley, W. and Belcher, P. (2006) Navigation, interaction and bridge team work. Sociological Review 54 (2): 342–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00617.x

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Harris, S. J. (1997) Managing Language. The Discourse of Corporate Meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Barnard, C. I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barnes, R. (2007) Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk 27 (3): 273–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.011

Bartu, H. (2003) Decisions and decision making in the Istanbul exploratory practice experience. Language Teaching Research 7 (2): 181–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr121oa

Boden, D. (1994) The Business of Talk. Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity.

Cicourel, A. V. (1968) The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Cicourel, A. V. (1986) The reproduction of objective knowledge: Common sense reasoning in medical decision making. In G. Böhme and Stehr (eds) The Knowledge Society: The

294 team decision making in the workplace

Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations, 87–125. Dordrecht, NL: D. Reidel.

Cicourel, A. V. (1990) The integration of distributed knowledge in collaborative medical diagnosis. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut and C. Egido (eds) Intellectual Teamwork. Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, 221–242. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clifton, J. (2006) A conversation analytic approach to business communication: The case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication 43 (3): 202–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943606288190

Collins, S., Britten, N., Ruusuvuori, J. and Thompson, A. (eds) (2007) Patient Participation in Health Care Consultations: Qualitative Perspectives. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392088

Cooren, F. (2004) The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of board meeting excerpts. Management Communication Quarterly 17 (4): 517–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318903262242

Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R. and van Every, E. J. (eds) (2006) Communication as Organizing. Empirical and Theoretical Explorations in the Dynamics of Text and Conversation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, A. and Elwyn, G. (eds) (2009) Shared Decision-Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence-Based Patient Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gee, J. P., Hull, G. and Lankshear, C. (1996) The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Graham, S. (2009) Hospitalk: Politeness and hierarchical structures in interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Journal of Politeness Research - Language Behaviour Culture 5 (1): 11–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.002

Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (eds) (2004) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: Sage.

Hall, C., Slembrouck, S. and Sarangi, S. (2006) Inter-professional decision-making in a case conference. In Language Practices in Social Work. Categorisation and Accountability in Child Welfare, 53–70. London: Routledge.

Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 71 (1): 3–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/490503

Heckscher, C. and Donnellon, A. (1994) The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Henderson, L. S. and Jurma, W. E. (1981) Distributional and sequential communication

kristin halvorsen 295

structure: A case study in organizational decision-making. Psychological Reports 48 (1): 279–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1981.48.1.279

Hickson, D. J., Butler, R. J., Cray, D., Mallory, G. R. and Wilson, D. C. (1986) Top Decisions. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hjörne, E. (2005) Negotiating the ‘problem-child’ in school. Qualitative Social Work 4 (4): 489–507.

Holmes, J. (2006) Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (1): 26–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007

Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2004) Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society 33 (3): 377–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504043039

Housley, W. (1999) Role as an interactional device and resource in multidisciplinary team meetings. Sociological Research Online 4 (3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/3/housley.html http://dx.doi.org/10.5153/sro.315

Housley, W. (2000a) Category work and knowledgeability within multidisciplinary team meetings. Text 20 (1): 83–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.83

Housley, W. (2000b) Story, narrative and team work. The Sociological Review 48 (3): 425–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00224

Hughes, D. and Griffiths, L. (1997) Ruling in ‘and ruling out’: Two approaches to the micro-rationing of health care. Social Science & Medicine 44 (5): 589–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00207-9

Huisman, M. (2001) Decision-making in meetings as talk-in-interaction. International Studies of Management & Organization 31 (3): 69–90.

Iedema, R. and Scheeres, H. (2003) From doing work to talking work: renegotiating knowing, doing, and identity. Applied Linguistics 24 (3): 316–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.3.316

Jablin, A. F. M. and Putnam, L. L. (2001) The New Handbook of Organizational Communication. London: Sage.

Kangasharju, H. (2002) Alignment in disagreement: forming oppositional alliances in committee meetings. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10-11): 1447–1471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00073-5

Kangasharju, H. and Nikko, T. (2009) Emotions in organizations: Joint laughter in workplace meetings. Journal of Business Communication 46 (1): 100–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325750

Kwon, W., Clarke, I. and Wodak, R. (2009) Organizational decision-making, discourse, and power: integrating across contexts and scales. Discourse & Communication 3 (3): 273–302.

March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958) Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Måseide, P. (2006) The deep play of medicine: Discursive and collaborative processing of

296 team decision making in the workplace

evidence in medical problem solving. Communication & Medicine 3 (1): 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CAM.2006.005

Mehan, H. (1983) The role of language and the language of role in institutional decision making. Language in Society 12 (2): 187–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009805

Menz, F. (1999) ‘Who am I gonna do this with?’: self-organization, ambiguity and decision-making in a business enterprise. Discourse & Society 10 (1): 101–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010001005

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Théorêt, A. (1976) The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 247–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392045

Nikander, P. (2003) The absent client: Case description and decision-making in interprofessional meetings. In C. Hall, K. Juhila and T. Pösö (eds) Constructing Clienthood in Social Work and Human Services: Identities, Interactions and Practices, 112–128. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1973) The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making. London: Tavistock.

Poncini, G. (2004) Discursive Strategies in Multicultural Business Meetings. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Putnam, L. L. and Nicotera, A. M. (eds) (2009) Building Theories of Organization. The Constitutive Role of Communication. London: Routledge.

Sanders, R. E. (2007) The effect of interactional competence on group problem solving. In F. Cooren (ed.) Interacting and Organizing. Analysis of a Management Meeting, 163–183. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sarangi, S. (1998) Interprofessional case construction in social work: The evidential status of information and its reportability. Text 18 (2): 241–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.2.241

Sarangi, S. (2004) Editorial. Towards a communicative mentality in medical and healthcare practice. Communication & Medicine 1 (1): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/come.2004.002

Sarangi, S. and Linell, P. (eds) (forthcoming) Team Talk: Decision-Making across the Boundaries in Health and Social Care Professions. London: Equinox.

Sarangi, S. and Roberts, C. (eds) (1999) Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Silverman, D. (1987) Communication and Medical Practice. Social Relations in the Clinic. London: SAGE.

Taylor, J. R. and van Every, E. J. (2000) The Emergent Organization. Communication as its Site and Surface. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wasson, C. (2000) Caution and consensus in American business meetings. Pragmatics 10 (4): 457–481.

Zimmermann, D. H. and Boden, D. (eds) (1991) Talk and Social Structure. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity.