Because Bales's theory looks at individual acts, B. Aubrey Fisher and Leonard Hawes refer to his approach as a human system model, meaning a model that focuses on individual human behaviors. They are critical of this approach and advocate instead an interact system model. An interact is the act of one person followed by the act of another—for example, question–answer, statement–statement, or greeting–greeting. Here, the unit for analysis is not an individual message, such as making a suggestion, but a paired sequence of acts, like a suggestion and the response to it.
Interacts can be classified along the content dimension and the relationship dimension. For example, if someone asked you a question, you would likely answer it, but the manner in which you delivered your answer could signal to the group whether you thought the question was reasonable or foolish. In this case, your verbal answer is the content dimension, while your nonverbal tone reflects the relational dimension. Despite the value of analyzing relational dimensions in group interaction, Fisher focuses primarily on content.
Because almost all comments in a task group relate in some way to a decision proposal—an idea or outcome around which the group seeks agreement—Fisher calls his theory decision emergence and classifies statements based on how they respond to a proposal. Statements may, for example, express agreement or disagreement with a suggestion.
In his theory of decision emergence, Fisher outlines four phases through which task groups typically progress: orientation, conflict, emergence, and reinforcement. He observes how interacts distribute across these phases and how communication patterns shift as a group forms and solidifies a decision.
The orientation phase involves getting acquainted, clarifying the task, and beginning to express viewpoints. People are generally agreeable but tentative, unsure of what to expect, and searching for clarity and direction.
The conflict phase features a significant increase in disagreement. Group members solidify their positions, leading to polarization. Interaction becomes more argumentative as individuals attempt to persuade one another, often forming temporary coalitions.
In the emergence phase, members begin to show the first signs of cooperation. Positions soften, attitudes shift, and comments become more ambiguous as the group begins to converge toward a shared decision. Favorable statements increase as consensus starts to take shape.
Finally, in the reinforcement phase, the group's decision solidifies. Members express support for the final outcome, and communication becomes overwhelmingly positive. The ambiguity found in the emergence phase gives way to unity and affirmation.
To illustrate these phases, Fisher analyzes a mock jury deliberation regarding an automobile–pedestrian accident. In the orientation phase, jurors clarify their responsibilities and possible verdicts, expressing significant uncertainty. In the conflict phase, disagreement escalates as jurors debate negligence and decision criteria. In the emergence phase, jurors begin tentatively agreeing that the defendant is not negligent, with reduced emotional intensity. In the reinforcement phase, the jurors fully affirm their shared conclusion.
A related concept in Fisher's work is decision modification. He finds that groups do not typically introduce a single idea and modify it gradually until consensus forms. Instead, decision modification tends to be cyclical. A proposal may be introduced and discussed, then dropped in favor of another, only to be revisited later in modified form. Discussions occur in energetic spurts as groups periodically shift away from task work to manage interpersonal tension, reflecting the intense and demanding nature of group interaction.
Fisher identifies two common patterns in proposal modification. When conflict is low, proposals become more specific over time. For example, a vague suggestion to begin a conference with "something nonthreatening" may gradually evolve into a concrete plan to open with a history of public health contributions to nursing. Groups often cycle through identifying the problem, discussing solution criteria, proposing abstract solutions, and eventually settling on concrete ones—though rarely in a smooth, linear manner.
When conflict is high, groups avoid making vague proposals more specific. Instead, they introduce alternative proposals of similar levels of abstraction because members lack agreement on the core idea.
Fisher's theory parallels broader group development models in other disciplines, which usually feature four phases similar to his. The best-known is Bruce Tuckman's model of forming, storming, norming, and performing. Susan Wheelan's model—dependency and inclusion; counterdependency; trust and structure; and work—is also widely cited in modern research.
Group communication scholars have extended these ideas. Marshall Scott Poole and colleagues propose that groups can follow multiple developmental paths depending on the contingencies they face. Some groups use a standard unitary sequence, similar to Fisher or Tuckman, but not always identically. Others follow a complex cyclic sequence, repeatedly shifting between defining the problem and generating solutions. Still others adopt a solution-oriented sequence, attempting to solve the problem immediately without analyzing it first.
The path a group follows depends on three sets of contingencies.Objective task characteristics include the clarity of the problem, whether standard solutions exist, the expertise required, and whether the solution will be ongoing or one-time.Group task characteristics include members' previous experience with the problem, whether innovation is required, and the urgency of the decision.Group structural characteristics include cohesiveness, power distribution, conflict history, and group size.
These contingencies shape whether a group uses a standard or unique decision path, how organized or disorganized the process becomes, its level of complexity, and the distribution of time spent across tasks.
Group development and decision emergence theories explain how groups function as they prepare for work and what members need at different stages. Historically, this research has described communication patterns rather than explaining why they occur. Poole's contingency framework is a major exception, identifying critical inputs that influence group processes. This sets the stage for the next theory.