Group Behavior in Organizations (Must Answer Both Questions)

Chapter5_GroupBehaviorInOrganizations.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help > Group Behavior in Organizations (Must Answer Both Questions)

163

5Problem Solving

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Compare and contrast convergent and divergent thinking styles, and the types of problems typically associ- ated with each.

• Outline the advantages and primary pitfalls of group problem solving.

• Explain the four stages of the group problem-solving process.

• Connect the seven steps of problem solving to the problem-solving cycle and outline the importance of each step.

• Describe strategies for managing creativity in group problem solving.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 163 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. The process of solving complex problems is linear and finite. T/F 2. Production blocking refers to an individual’s tendency to deliberately slow the progress

of task-related tasks and activities. T/F 3. When it comes to complex problem solving, groups tend to outperform individuals—

even individuals with outstanding knowledge, skills, and abilities. T/F 4. Convergent and divergent thinking are opposite and incompatible cognitive problem-

solving styles. T/F 5. Creativity is a rare and unusual talent. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction Over the past 12 months, a midsize nonprofit organization has noticed a steady month- to-month decline in donations, which are their primary source of funding. Based on the available financial information, the board of directors and administrators realize they will either have to solve the problem or restructure their operations, which would include decreasing the number of employees and scaling back their support efforts and events.

After holding several meetings about the ongoing decline, the board of directors and administrators decide to establish a cross-functional team to analyze and solve the prob- lem. They select team members from finance and marketing, as well as the directors of annual giving, fund-raising, and volunteering. The members are chosen not only because of the departments with which they are associated, but also because they have previously worked together on other successful projects.

The team is tasked with finding a way to increase donations. While the problem seems straightforward at first, the team soon realizes the problem itself can be interpreted in different ways. For example, is this a problem of declining support for the cause? Or of ineffective marketing strategies? Or of faulty outreach programs?

Marcus, the director of fund-raising, suggests they take the time to conceptualize and define the problem before attempting to solve it. To aid the process, the team creates a list of basic needs the problem represents. This list includes the larger goal of increasing donations to previous levels but also includes questions such as why previous donors have stopped contributing and how best to understand donor motivations. The team must also consider several parameters that would impact potential solutions, including budget lim- its, existing marketing contracts, and legal restrictions on how donations are sought.

After several discussions, the team members realize the underlying problem is a lack of interest in their organization. Through research, they discover that donation levels to other organizations that work on the same or similar causes has remained steady; their organization is alone in experiencing a marked decline in donations.

With the problem more clearly framed, the team members feel they are ready to gener- ate possible solutions. Marcus, who has naturally emerged as the team’s leader, proposes a few solutions and makes sure to give the team ample time to thoroughly discuss each option before presenting the next one. Marcus knows that if he presents too many ideas

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 164 8/19/16 9:35 AM

What Is Problem Solving?

too quickly, the team members won’t be able to thoughtfully process each idea, verbalize their opinions, or think of new twists on the original idea.

Marcus thinks the team is highly engaged in the ideation process, and he is pleased that most members regularly contribute ideas and effort. Gunnar, the finance manager, is the exception. He keeps relatively quiet at each meeting and has only spoken once—when asked whether he agreed with the team’s most recent suggestion for a solution. Marcus wonders if Gunnar’s lukewarm participation reflects his lack of interest in the project, but this seems unlikely, given Gunnar’s enthusiasm when the team was defining the problem and gathering data. This leads Marcus to believe that Gunnar, who is the most junior- ranking member of the team, might be concerned with how his ideas will be evaluated by the team’s more senior members. Marcus decides to speak to Gunnar outside of a regular meeting and encourages him to voice his ideas at the next team meeting. Gunnar gradu- ally begins to participate more by asking questions and offering his opinion before the team asks for it.

Over the following weeks, several more ideas, including a few from Gunnar, are proposed and evaluated. Eventually, the team reaches a consensus on a solution and outlines its implementation process. The solution and implementation plan are presented to the board of directors and administrators for their approval. Once approved, the team moves forward with implementing the solution. The initial phases of implementation are carried out successfully, and the team continues to carefully monitor the impact of its solution on the donations received by the organization.

Solving problems is a natural and necessary part of today’s organizational process. The prevalence of groups and teams as organizational work units, and the connections between innovation and teamwork, make group problem solving a significant factor in the success of contemporary organizations. Chapter 5 introduces the elements of problem solving, outlines the advantages and challenges of group problem solving, and provides a detailed examination of the problem-solving process. Finally, it examines the relationship between creativity and group problem solving and identifies techniques and strategies for managing creativity in groups.

5.1 What Is Problem Solving? Problem solving refers to the complex cognitive and physical process of seeking a solution to a problem or finding a path to a desired outcome or goal. Problems represent unstructured or inappropriately structured activities to which a solution and/or the path to it have yet to be made clear (Adejumo, Duimering, & Zhong, 2008). Solutions are options or alternatives that resolve a problem, address a challenge, satisfy a need, or answer a question (Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011). Our job as problem solvers is to navigate the path between a problem and a desirable solution. We do this by using a combination of convergent and divergent thinking.

Convergent and Divergent Thinking Convergent thinking is a cognitive problem-solving style that involves using existing knowl- edge, patterns, and critical thinking to derive the single, most concretely correct answer from

Section 5.1

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 165 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.1 What Is Problem Solving?

a finite set of options (Cropley, 2006; Runco, 2003). Convergent thought emphasizes logic, accuracy, and speed. It focuses on accumulating information, recognizing the familiar, and reapplying set techniques (Cropley, 2006). Its cognitive opposite, divergent thinking, is ori- ented toward combining existing knowledge or frames of reference in new or unexpected ways to produce a potentially infinite set of solution options or alternatives. Divergent thought emphasizes variability, flexibility, and originality. The divergent thought process focuses on transforming information, recognizing or generating links between remote frames of refer- ence, and making innovative combinations. Table 5.1 outlines the processes and results asso- ciated with convergent and divergent thinking.

Table 5.1: Convergent versus divergent thinking

Type of thought Typical processes Typical results

Convergent • Being logical • Recognizing the familiar • Combining items with similar

characteristics • Identifying a single best answer • Reapplying set techniques • Preserving acquired knowledge • Achieving accuracy and

correctness • Playing it safe • Sticking to a limited range of

clearly relevant information

• Only making associations from directly related fields

• Greater understanding of familiar concepts

• Better grasp of the facts • A quick, “correct” answer • Specific, high-level expertise • Closure on a particular issue • A feeling of security and safety

Divergent • Being unconventional • Seeing familiar concepts,

information, elements, and processes in a new light

• Combining diverse concepts • Producing multiple answers • Shifting perspectives • Transforming familiar ideas • Seeing new possibilities • Taking risks • Using knowledge from a broad

range of disciplines

• Bringing together ideas from separate and diverse fields

• Alternative or multiple solutions • Deviating from tradition or the

“norm” • Surprising answers • New approaches • Exciting or risky possibilities • Feelings of uncertainty or

excitement

Convergent and divergent thinking are so opposite in style that early researchers felt this must indicate two distinct types of problems (Farrell & Hooker, 2013). Rittel and Webber (1973) coined the terms defined and wicked to differentiate between problems that inher- ently require more convergent or divergent thought processes.

Defined and Wicked Problems Defined problems refer to straightforward problems that do not require complex interpre- tation and that have solutions that are demonstrably correct and repeatable—in other words, they have definitively right and wrong answers (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Farrell & Hooker, 2013). The solution to a defined problem will be one of a finite set of options that require resources (e.g., knowledge, technology, physical ability, or material equipment) but do not require complex interpretation to select the right one. Mapping the quickest walking route to

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 166 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.1 What Is Problem Solving?

the nearest Starbucks, for example, is straightforward and requires only the ability to use a computer or Internet-enabled cell phone.

However, consider what happens to this straightforward problem-solving process if we ask instead for the best coffee shop within a 2-mile radius of our workplace. Our immediate prob- lem is interpretation of the term best. Does it mean closest? Fastest or most friendly service? Perhaps it refers to a coffee shop with extras such as complimentary snacks or a fully loaded bakery selection. What about coffee types, available flavors, and brewing methods? Maybe best pertains to the ambiance, design, and comfort of the seating arrangements and available entertainment or describes the clientele. Each interpretation opens a different set of possible solutions, and it is likely that real-life interpretations of best will encompass personal combi- nations of any or all of these elements. This is the nature of wicked problems.

Wicked problems, sometimes called ill-defined, are multilevel problems that change accord- ing to viewpoint. Before looking for a solution, these problems often require the question to be interpreted (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Farrell & Hooker, 2013). For example, which interpreta- tion of “best coffee shop” resonated for you? Depending on your answer, the range of possible solutions changes. Because they can be interpreted in many different ways, wicked problems have no definitively “right” answer, and no two people addressing the problem separately are likely to come up with the exact same solution. As both the problem and what constitutes a best solution are open for debate, solving wicked problems typically involves constructive conflict—allowing new ideas and interpretations to emerge. Even when individuals or groups address a wicked problem they have solved before, they are likely to come up with an entirely different solution the second time around.

Following their introduction by Rittel and Webber in 1973, the concept of defined and wicked problems was inducted into problem-solving research across multiple fields. For some time afterward, defined problems were associated with science and logic, while wicked problems were tied to creativity and design. Today complex problems are viewed as neither concretely defined nor wicked, but as a series of nested problems that fall into an approximate position on a sliding scale between the extremes of defined and wicked. Complex problems almost always require a dynamic mixture of convergent and divergent thinking, as our critical-think- ing skills inform and support our creative ideation abilities and provide the basic foundation for solution testing and critique (Rittel, 2010; Farrell & Hooker, 2013).

Business Applications: Johnson & Johnson and Chicago PD Join Forces to Fight Crime Using Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Complex problems require a mixture of convergent and divergent thinking. Consider John- son & Johnson’s collaboration with the Chicago Police Department to investigate and resolve issues surrounding a series of deaths in the early 1980s that became known as the Chicago Tylenol murders (Basadur & Gelade, 2006; Emsley, 2008). This was the scenario:

In September and October 1982, seven people from various neighborhoods in Chicago died suddenly after consuming Tylenol pain capsules, prompting the police to issue urgent warnings throughout the city. Initial investigations revealed that product tampering after distribution

(continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 167 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

In the next section, we take a look at group problem solving and why groups are ideal for addressing complex problems.

5.2 Group Problem Solving Are two heads really better than one? When it comes to solving complex problems, the answer is typically yes (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Laughlin, Bonner, & Miner, 2002; Laughlin, Zander, Knievel, & Tan, 2003). Group problem solving represents a social process in which group members seek a solution to a problem or an optimal path to a desired outcome or goal (Wang & Chiew, 2010).

caused the deaths. Poison was placed in an unknown number of bottles that were returned intact to various supermarkets and drugstores. Johnson & Johnson issued a national recall of Tylenol products, halted Tylenol production and advertising, and publicly warned hospitals, distributors, and individuals of the potential danger. The company’s market shares collapsed from 35% to 8% during this time.

Heavily invested in solving the problem for both public and organizational welfare, Johnson & Johnson joined the ongoing investigation, establishing relations with the Chicago police, the FBI, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Working together to quickly assemble and analyze the facts, they determined that only liquid capsule products containing acetamin- ophen had been tampered with. This narrowed the danger considerably and helped reassure a panicking populace. Johnson & Johnson offered to exchange any capsules already purchased for solid tablet forms. While the investigation was still ongoing, Johnson & Johnson’s design teams began pioneering an innovative tamperproof packaging that has since been adopted industry-wide. By November the newly packaged products hit the shelves. The media lauded Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the crisis (Knight, 1982), and the company’s stock rebounded in less than a year.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Which type of problem—defined or wicked—and problem-solving style does the state-

ment below imply? Use the information from what you have read to support your answer.

Working together to quickly assemble and analyze the facts, they determined that only liq- uid capsule products containing acetaminophen had been tampered with.

2. How did Johnson & Johnson use a mixture of divergent and convergent thinking to solve the problem of its collapsing market share?

Business Applications: Johnson & Johnson and Chicago PD Join Forces to Fight Crime Using Convergent and Divergent Thinking

(continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 168 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

Advantages of Group Problem Solving The major advantage of working in groups for any situation is the ability to access a broad range of experience and KSAs. By engaging in collaborative performance, groups:

• share assets and resources, • broaden diversity and range of approach, and • generate enhanced comprehension and optimization, both in process and for the

final product or outcome.

These are the primary benefits of group interaction. In a well-functioning group or team, these conditions give groups an advantage over individuals for complex problem solving.

Sharing Assets and Resources If a problem is complex enough to warrant a group or team, solving it will likely call for a range of KSAs. For this reason, problem-solving groups often outperform even individuals with superlative skills or capability (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Laughlin et al., 2003). Variation in member KSAs can be a highly valuable form of group diversity. Even if members possess the same or similar KSAs, they will vary in their degree of knowledge or achievement and their ability to use their KSAs in collaboration with others or in the context of the problem at hand. All of a group’s members, for example, may know how to use applications like Excel and PowerPoint; however, some may be particularly proficient, able to work more quickly within them, have technical knowledge of shortcuts or fixes, or have KSAs that enable them to put together a more visually pleasing presentation than others in the group. Likewise, some members may be particularly talented public speakers, be skilled at giving presentations, know how to explain a complex concept, excel at outlining arguments, or be very persuasive. Groups that can effectively coordinate their members’ range of KSAs and plug them into the areas or situations where they are most needed have a distinct advantage over individuals, who must work with just one set of KSAs.

Groups enable us to move beyond individual limitations in other ways, too. Just as work- ing with others can help us perform more physical labor than we could accomplish working alone, groups enable us to carry heavier mental loads. An individual’s capacity to process and recall information is finite. The working memory of the human brain is only capable of focus- ing on five to nine items (thoughts, ideas, solutions, and so on) at any given moment (Miller, 1956). Beyond the upper limit of this range, the brain must begin to let some things go. How- ever, once ideas or information have been shared, they become part of the group’s collective memory, and chances are good that at least one person will recall or reactivate significant discussion items before they are lost. The key to unlocking this advantage is effective com- munication and knowledge sharing.

Broadening Diversity and Range of Approach Groups have the advantage over individual problem solvers because of their broader diver- sity and range of approach. This benefits groups in two specific areas: greater access to solu- tion space and improved creativity.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 169 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

In math and computer science, the set of all possible solutions that satisfy a problem’s con- straints is known as the solution space. In problem solving, the solution space represents all the ideas and solutions that can potentially lead us to a desirable outcome. Unfortunately, studies have shown that when it comes to solving complex problems, most of us tend to over- look 70% to 80% of our solution space (Gettys, Pliske, Manning, & Casey, 1987; Connolly, Routhieaux, & Schneider, 1993). This is because we have a tendency to think within familiar and relatively narrow bounds when faced with large or complex problems; we typically fall back on previous ideas and perspectives, especially those that have worked well in the past (Amabile, 1990, 1998; Santanen, Briggs, & de Vreede, 2004). Ironically, it is in solving complex problems that we most need access to a large and diverse solution space. By sharing diverse knowledge, expertise, and experience, groups increase their access to the problem’s solu- tion space. Even if individual members are inclined to repeat past ideas and perspectives, the diversity of the group will tend to correct this by offering greater variety regarding past experiences.

Creativity is thought to arise from the juxtaposition, or bringing together in a given context, an association of frames of reference previously thought to be incompatible (Benedek, Konen, & Neubauer, 2012). Working in groups increases our potential to juxtapose different ideas, viewpoints, and frames of reference to come up with new combinations and innovative solu- tions (Nicholas, Paulus, & Choi, 2011; Milliken, Bartel, & Kurtzberg, 2003). Groups think more creatively when diverse knowledge and perspectives intersect, as they do in a properly func- tioning problem-solving team.

Consider the creative solution devel- oped by the team assigned to increasing sales in Tesco’s South Korean supermarket chain, Home Plus (“Tesco,” 2011). Researching the company’s clientele, the Tesco team discovered that dense traffic, impacted schedules, and propen- sity to ride commuter trains made it difficult for South Korean shop- pers to get to and from the market- place. However, the team also knew that browsing real aisles with actual products was easier, more immedi- ately gratifying, and more likely to foster impulse shopping than pains- takingly searching for specific items listed on a website and waiting days for a delivery.

The Tesco team’s solution was to jux- tapose the disparate frames of the online and brick-and-mortar marketplace. The team placed large wall panels and kiosks on subway platforms and terminals, each of which displayed realistic, life-size photos of food and store items. Customers could simply photograph the items they wanted and pay for them online. The whole transaction could be handled by cell phone while waiting for a train. With a

Paul Brown/Rex Features via AP Images

Under its local brand name Home Plus, supermarket Tesco launched virtual shops in South Korea’s subways that enable time-strapped commuters to order groceries using their smartphones and receive deliveries later that evening.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 170 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

delivery time ranging from minutes to hours, customers could even find their groceries wait- ing for them when they got home.

We will examine creativity and group problem solving in detail later in this chapter.

Generating Enhanced Comprehension and Optimization Effective problem solving often depends on the capacity to comprehend nested problems and issues that arise within the process and on the ability to recognize a problem or optimize a solution. It is a little known fact, for example, that pathologist Eugen Semmer was the first to report the effects of penicillin—almost 60 years before Alexander Fleming published his own discovery of the substance in 1929 (Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2010a; Cropley, 2006). In 1870 Semmer published an article in a well-known German science journal, outlining the bizarre return to health of infected horses after their accidental exposure to Penicillium notatum fungus spores. Unfortunately for both Semmer and the world, his work centered on exploring disease fatality rather than curative factors.

Semmer saw the fungus as a problem—to be eliminated so his studies could progress— rather than a puzzle that, if solved, would forever change the treatment of disease in both animals and humans. Oops! Alternate knowledge and perspectives would have been really helpful there. Interestingly, Fleming also spent 12 years completely focused on the antiseptic properties of penicillin as a treatment for surface infections and wounds (Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2010a). It took an interdisciplinary team to realize penicillin’s potential for treat- ing internal infections and disease (Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2010b).

Discussing ideas within the group and “talking out” possible solutions also enhances our abil- ity to effectively communicate an idea or solution to those who must implement it. Problems or failures in the implementation stage can often be traced to communication or comprehen- sion failures between those who generate a solution and those who apply it. Group members who are expected both to generate and implement an outcome typically have a more com- prehensive and accurate understanding of what needs to be done and why than individuals who are simply assigned to implementation by someone else. Of course, in an organizational setting, there are often more people involved with implementing a solution than those who participated in its generation. Here again, the group process has advantages over the individ- ual; simply by engaging in the problem-solving process together, the group develops clear and effective communication about the nature and needs of the outcome and its implementation.

Reality Check: “Houston, We Have Had a Problem” April 13, 1970: Nine minutes after wishing America a good night on a live TV broadcast, the crew of NASA’s Apollo 13 experienced a “sharp bang and vibration” as an oxygen tank exploded. Over the course of the next hour, the command module lost critical fuel, electricity, light, and water supplies as the crew members watched their oxygen vent out into space. Fifteen min- utes before total loss of power, they evacuated into the attached lunar module (LM) and began to assess conditions for an emergency landing on Earth.

(continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 171 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

Now that we understand the advantages of problem solving in groups, let’s look at some of the pitfalls of group problem solving.

Primary Pitfalls in Group Problem Solving When addressing a complex problem, most problem-solving groups will outperform even the most skilled, knowledgeable, and capable individuals (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Laughlin et al., 2002, 2003). However, groups are vulnerable to process loss due to dysfunctional interaction dynamics between members. Engaging a problem as a group or team requires collaboration

Before the initial explosion, the Apollo 13 crew had been following a preplanned course to land on the moon. Now, however, they needed to get into a free-return trajectory toward Earth, using navigational equipment they manually appropriated from the failing command module. However, the damage from the initial explosion had also compromised the computerized navi- gation equipment, and ground control had to quickly create and test unique procedures for altitude and course corrections using the sun as a navigation point.

Consumables were also a problem. Oxygen was sufficient for the projected 90-hour return flight, but power and water had to be scrounged and rigidly conserved. Intended to support only two crew members for 24 hours, the LM struggled to accommodate the three-person crew. Thirty-six hours into the crisis, carbon dioxide levels went critical. The crew needed to use filtration canisters salvaged from the command module, but they were the wrong shape for the LM. Under a critical time crunch, Houston quickly assembled a cross-functional task force to devise a solution using plastic bags, cardboard, and tape—the only materials available to the Apollo 13 crew—in order to create a makeshift filtration system.

Approximately 87 hours after the initial explosion, the crew splashed down in the South Pacific and was safely recovered by the USS Iwo Jima. Although Apollo 13 did not complete its intended mission, the incredible teamwork involved in the safe return of the crew caused NASA to classify the mission as a “successful failure.” Although the problem solvers were all capable, intelligent experts, it took the flexibility and creativity engendered by team collabora- tion to resolve the myriad of complex critical issues and bring the crew of the Apollo 13 safely home.

For more details on the Apollo 13 mission, visit the website below:

http://space.about.com/od/spaceexplorationhistory/a/apollo13.htm

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. To design a workable filtration canister using only the materials the crew had aboard

the Apollo 13, NASA put together an emergency task force. Given the severe time limit for solving the problem, and the fact that individuals tend to be faster problem solvers than groups, explain why you think NASA decided to give this problem to a team rather than just one very smart individual.

2. Optional: Watch the 1995 film Apollo 13, which dramatically reenacts the group problem-solving processes engaged in by both shuttle crew and Houston ground teams.

Reality Check: “Houston, We Have Had a Problem” (continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 172 8/19/16 9:35 AM

http://space.about.com/od/spaceexplorationhistory/a/apollo13.htm

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

at every turn. As with all group processes, lack of participation and poor communication take a heavy toll on the efficacy of problem-solving groups. Specific issues include evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and destructive criticism, all of which can contribute to and be worsened by lack of participation and poor communication.

Evaluation Apprehension The fear of being poorly perceived or evaluated by others—known as evaluation apprehen- sion—can inhibit group creativity and problem-solving processes. When working in groups, we tend to express our intrinsic desire for acceptance by wanting to appear competent and garner support or praise from other members regarding our contributions to group efforts (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). Unfortunately, when people feel unsure of their abilities or fear that group members will react negatively to their contributions, they often participate less, abstain from, or conform to the majority during group discussions (Paulus, 1999).

While mutual accountability supports collective motivation and the sense of “us-ness” within a group, it can also be perceived as a social pressure to perform well. Group members who fear criticism or rejection tend to self-censor to avoid being judged poorly, perceived as dis- agreeable, or viewed as a “weak link” within the group (Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003). These attitudes and behaviors can turn into habitual social loafing, or the tendency for some members to work below capacity when in a group (Blaskovich, 2008; Lam, 2015). While eval- uation apprehension is internally motivated, the other major contributor to social loafing— production blocking—is externally imposed.

Production Blocking Have you ever had a great idea to suggest to a group but couldn’t get a word into the conversa- tion—and then forgot it when the chance to share came around? Production blocking occurs when members are distracted from their thinking processes or unable to verbalize their ideas as they occur (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003), resulting in ideas being suppressed or lost. This tends to occur most often in the fast-paced or energetic discussions that typically surround group interactions involving ideation, conflict, and debate (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Rietzschel, Nijs- tad, & Stroebe, 2006)—all characteristic features of the group problem-solving process. When members are brainstorming or discussing a concept, it can be difficult for others to keep track of—let alone get adequate time to present—their own ideas. This is particularly true for individuals who are less socially confident (Nijstad, Diehl, & Strobe, 2003).

If enough time passes or if the group shifts topics, members may perceive their opinions or suggestions as irrelevant or second guess their usefulness (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991). Once in that mindset, they may voluntarily suppress information or ideas even when offered a chance to share. While these interaction dynamics do not appear overtly threatening, the effects of production blocking can be so severe that, for a period of time in the late 1980s and early 1990s, some researchers advocated individual problem solving, asserting that effective group ideation was essentially a myth (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991; Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes, & Camacho, 1993; Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1992). It took a decade of research to overturn this perception and conclude that group ideation really does work—when the activities are properly structured (Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996; Kramer, Fleming, & Mannis, 2001; Nijstad et al., 2003). Section 5.5 takes a closer look at how this is done.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 173 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

Destructive Criticism Reaping the benefits of group interaction and problem solving heavily depends on open com- munication and knowledge sharing between group members. Constructive criticism points out errors, flaws, and weaknesses in members’ task-related ideas, contributions, and efforts for the purpose of strengthening these. It often includes suggestions that aid personal devel- opment and performance. Destructive criticism, on the other hand, points out errors, flaws, weaknesses, and other perceived negatives in members’ task-related ideas, contributions, and efforts without regard for strengthening these. In other words, destructive criticism tears down personal contributions and performance without offering any assistance to build them back up. While constructive criticism fosters trust, confidence, and knowledge sharing among group members, destructive criticism has the opposite effect. Member trust, confidence, and knowledge sharing suffer, severely hampering the group problem-solving process. Destruc- tive criticism also increases existing member tendencies toward evaluation apprehension and social loafing. In the next section, we will examine the group problem-solving process.

5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process Researchers in the field of group dynamics have spent considerable time and effort exam- ining the group problem-solving process to find that problem solving involves a four-stage cycle (Basadur, Gelade, & Basadur, 2014). In this section, we outline the problem-solving cycle (Figure 5.1) and illustrate the general activities that take place within each stage.

The stages are sequential, beginning with generation and ending with implementation—how- ever, solving a complex problem typically entails solving a series of smaller “problems within the problem.” For example, shrinking battery size while maintaining charge time was just one of the problems Apple designers solved to produce an iPad Mini that was 23% thinner and 53% lighter than a full-sized iPad (Dilger, 2012). Because each problem that arises within the larger problem-solving process also follows the four-stage cycle from beginning to end, many view complex problem solving as a circular process, wherein the stages flow continuously and sequentially into one another for as long as the problem solvers remain engaged in the process (Basadur & Gelade, 2003, 2006).

Stage 1: Generation Generation marks the beginning of the problem-solving process. In this stage, problems are discovered by proactively acquiring information and sensing opportunities, trends, inconsis- tencies, and needs via a process that has been playfully referred to as “opportunistic surveil- lance” (Basadur et al., 2014, p. 83). What does this look like in the real world? In an inter- view with Life magazine (Callahan, 1972), Edwin Land described how problem recognition spurred his invention of the Polaroid camera. While vacationing in Santa Fe with his 3-year- old daughter, Land came to the end of his roll of film and suggested they take it for processing so that they could see their pictures. Frustrated by the wait, his daughter asked why she could

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 174 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Stage 1 Generation

Stage 3 Optimization

Stage 4 Implementation

Stage 2 Conceptualization

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

not see the pictures right away. Galvanized by her question, Land considered a problem that had never occurred to him before:

As I walked around that charming town, I undertook the task of solving the puzzle she had set for me. Within the hour, the camera, the film and the physi- cal chemistry became so clear that with a great sense of excitement I hurried to the place where a friend was staying, to describe to him in detail a dry camera which would give a picture immediately after exposure. . . . Four years later we demonstrated the working system to the Optical Society of America. (Callahan, 1972, p. 48)

Years later, Land stated that the moment in which his daughter asked him why she had to wait so long to see their pictures—the moment that spurred his spontaneous recognition of a problem—was the most important part of his invention process (Basadur & Gelade, 2003).

Opportunistic surveillance depends on our ability to recognize an opportunity for improve- ment or change, as Land did when he regarded his daughter’s question as an opportunity to design a new style of camera and film development. In the workplace, opportunistic surveil- lance can represent relatively simple acts of problem recognition, like finding an error on an accounting balance sheet, to infinitely more complex processes, such as actively following trends to identify new market or product opportunities. At the generation stage, problems are

Figure 5.1: The four-stage problem-solving cycle

As problems nested within the problem-solving process arise, the problem-solving cycle becomes circular in nature.

Source: Based on Basadur & Gelade, 2003, 2006.

Stage 1 Generation

Stage 3 Optimization

Stage 4 Implementation

Stage 2 Conceptualization

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 175 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

recognized but not yet clearly defined and understood (Basadur et al., 2014). We may recog- nize an error in our balance sheet, for example, but not know exactly where the problem lies. Often, problem-solving groups and teams are formed or brought in after the generation stage. For instance, once an organization identifies a new market opportunity or product need, it will then create a group or team to develop that opportunity or product to best advantage.

Stage 2: Conceptualization Conceptualization encompasses the period in which effort is spent to understand the nature and scope of the problem identified during the generation stage, and to use this knowledge to imagine and formulate solutions. The key point here is in preserving that sequence, with activities first undertaken to define the problem, then to generate ideas, which is known as ideation. This order is critical, because the way in which a problem is defined has a great deal of impact on how people ideate solutions. Consider our earlier example of Land and the Polaroid camera. When his daughter asked why she could not immediately view their photos, Land took that moment of generation and conceptualized a problem defined as, “How can I make a camera that would allow us to view our photos now?” What if Land had simply defined the problem as, “How can I explain photo processing to my daughter?” He would have merely explained why the photos took so long to process, and a piece of classic Americana may never have been invented. Instead, Land’s definition lead him to ideate a new hand-held camera that would produce no chemical waste, and have zero processing time (Callahan, 1972).

Next, we examine what happens to the ideas and solutions we come up with after the concep- tualization stage.

Stage 3: Optimization Optimization involves analyzing and critiquing ideas and solutions formed during the con- ceptualization period. These are matched against practical considerations and real-world constraints in an effort to identify and plan for potential difficulties. At this point, problem- solving teams systematically examine proposals and alternatives to develop what they think is the best solution that can be carried out with existing resources, and a plan for implement- ing that solution (Basadur et al., 2014). For example, while Land was unable to fully satisfy his original desire for his camera to have zero processing time, he worked with multiple teams to significantly reduce actual processing time by inventing new self-developing film print. They also reduced perceived processing time by designing a quick ejection system.

While the possibility for conflict and miscommunication exist throughout the problem- solving process, teams are particularly prone to these—and their negative dynamics—dur- ing the optimization stage. This is due, in part, to the composition of problem-solving teams. Effective teams are often intentionally diverse to give the group access to a wide range of per- sonal knowledge, expertise, and perspectives. As we have already learned, diverse teams tend to generate higher quality and more innovative ideas. This is because they are more likely to challenge existing ideas and assumptions, apply multiple perspectives to identify poten- tial problems, and develop more comprehensive and better justified strategies and solutions through debate (Walkup, 2003; Agrawal, 2012). However, diversity also generates more con- flict, which can negatively affect member relations and lead to process loss if too much time is spent in debate.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 176 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

Whereas the conceptualization stage is characterized by a general openness to diverse per- spectives, the optimization stage can present a “cold shower” on this spirit of cooperation, as members realize that the opinions and arguments they entertain now will truly affect the out- come of the problem-solving process. Members can form logical and emotional attachments to certain ideas or solutions and feel threatened by the idea of debate and collective decision making. After solutions are analyzed and selected, we move on to implementation.

Stage 4: Implementation Implementation marks the completion of the problem-solving process. Activities at this point are focused on putting the team’s solution into action—whether that means announc- ing a new organizational policy, decision, or process; manufacturing and distributing a prod- uct; or introducing a new or updated service—and monitoring their effect. As with the gen- eration stage, implementation stage activities may or may not be carried out by the same group that engaged in the conceptualization and optimization stages. Teams tasked with new product development typically oversee the entire process, from initial ideation and design, to prototype creation and testing, to manufacturing and distribution. Other project teams, task forces, and parallel teams may complete their efforts before implementation. These teams carry out activities such as researching a new market opportunity, designing a new advertise- ment or sales strategy, finding an urgent solution to a specific design flaw, or investigating an organizational decision or issue. In such cases implementation is then passed on to others within the organization.

Implementation is not simply a matter of determining a solution, making a plan to carry it out, and letting it all unfold. The progress of the implementation plan and the success or failure of the solution must be carefully monitored and adjusted as needed. Although this repre- sents the end stage of a group’s primary problem-solving objective, smaller issues and prob- lems can still arise and must be immediately addressed. Let’s consider the Polaroid example again. Land’s teams were able to create a smaller camera by using an internal optical system featuring precision mirrors. The first of its kind to operate in such a tiny space, this system took years to develop. Polaroid then had to develop a precision molding process to produce the camera components. Additionally, to implement the quick print eject system and inter- nal optical system, Land’s Polaroid teams needed to develop a substance that would pro- tect the film as it continued processing in regular light (Callahan, 1972). Land’s teams had to solve many small problems in its pursuit of solving the primary problem of creating a smaller, faster, and more efficient camera.

It is typical for problems to arise within the problem-solving process. Organizational prob- lems that call for group work or teamwork tend to be complex, encompassing a series of smaller problems within them (Basadur & Gelade, 2006). For example, tasking a team with developing a specific service for a new online market involves a number of smaller problems, such as discovering exactly what these new clients desire from the service; how it will be advertised, offered, and delivered; and solving all of the practical and technical details of the design for implementation. Each of the smaller problems that arise within the problem- solving process will follow their own variation of the four-stage life cycle (Basadur et al., 2014). They will be recognized (generation) and analyzed and interpreted for solution ide- ation (conceptualization). Then solution ideas and alternatives will be critiqued to determine an optimal choice (optimization), and the solution will be put into effect (implementation).

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 177 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Stage 1 Generation • Step 1: Recognizing the problem

Stage 3 Optimization • Step 4: Solution testing • Step 5: Selecting a solution

Stage 2 Conceptualization • Step 2: Problem framing • Step 3: Generating solutions

Stage 4 Implementation • Step 6: Putting the solution into effect • Step 7: Generating the Solution

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

Now that we have a firm grasp on the problem-solving cycle and some of the activities involved with each stage, the next section maps the process step-by-step.

5.4 Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process The four stages of the problem-solving cycle represent a broad view of the problem-solving process. Imagined as a journey plotted out on a map, generation, conceptualization, optimiza- tion, and implementation represent the major cities we plan to travel through. What this itin- erary lacks is a detailed view of what we will actually be doing in each of these places. To effectively act within the group problem-solving process, we need a take a closer look at the individual steps that are involved in collectively solving a problem and the activities they encompass. These are incorporated in the detailed four-stage problem-solving cycle shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Detailed four-stage problem-solving cycle

There are seven steps that take place within the four-stage problem-solving cycle.

Stage 1 Generation • Step 1: Recognizing the problem

Stage 3 Optimization • Step 4: Solution testing • Step 5: Selecting a solution

Stage 2 Conceptualization • Step 2: Problem framing • Step 3: Generating solutions

Stage 4 Implementation • Step 6: Putting the solution into effect • Step 7: Generating the Solution

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 178 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

To further our understanding of group problem solving, we’ll examine the steps in the problem-solving process as they played out in the development of Procter & Gamble’s Coast soap bar (Basadur & Gelade, 2003).

In 1972 Colgate launched Irish Spring, a green soap bar featuring stripes—a look never before seen in American soap. The company’s ad campaign was based on the idea of “refreshment,” and the soap was a huge success. Management executives at Procter & Gamble decided to introduce their own product to capitalize on the Irish Spring market campaign. Working off the idea that second entrants into a new market must demonstrate a competitive advantage, they launched a new product development team (NPDT) to solve the following problem: How can we make a green-striped bar that consumers would prefer over Irish Spring? By defining the problem this way, Procter & Gamble focused solely on the soap’s appearance, overlooking the fact that the ad campaign linking Irish Spring to “refreshment” was also a large factor in the product’s success. Proctor & Gamble executives realized the limitations they had imposed on their team when, despite serious efforts and experimentation, they failed to develop a green-striped soap that could outperform Irish Spring. Blind testing rated their prototypes as merely equal in quality, and the NPDT drew a blank on where to go from there.

Proctor & Gamble executives brought in an expert (Basadur & Gelade, 2003), who suggested they define the problem in another way: How might our soap better embody or suggest “refresh- ment” in appearance, shape, and odor? Using this updated definition, the team visualized scenes, situations, and images that suggested refreshment. Of the many ideas proposed, two were selected and combined: (a) the image and sensations of standing at the seacoast, and (b) sitting on a beach looking at blue-and-white clouds. This ultimately resulted in a blue-and- white swirled bar of a unique odor and shape that Proctor & Gamble successfully marketed under the brand name Coast—but not without first solving a few more nested problems. In the end, Coast soap was wildly successfully after its launch in 1976 and remains a consistent breadwinner for Proctor & Gamble today.

Let’s begin our examination of the steps encompassed within the problem-solving process.

Step 1: Recognizing the Problem Recognizing the problem is a vital part of the problem-solving process. It includes activities such as data comprehension, pattern seeking, perception of the interaction between the parts and whole, and locating discrepancies, dysfunction, and opportunity for change. The problem-solving process cannot actually begin until a problem is recognized. However, this step is often discounted because problem-solving teams typically arrive on the scene after recognition has occurred. This was the case for members of the Coast soap team. They were assigned to address an opportunity—launch a product to capitalize on the success of Irish Spring soap—and a problem—design a competitive new productive that will appeal to Irish Spring consumers—that had already been recognized by Proctor & Gamble’s management executives. Once a problem has been recognized, the process of problem framing begins.

Step 2: Framing the Problem Problem framing describes the process of examining and clarifying the essential nature of a given problem, its associated elements, and context. Key activities of problem framing include

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 179 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

seeking data and contextual information, defining the problem, accessing and assessing resources, thinking critically, shifting perspective or viewing the issue from multiple sides, and identifying the basic needs, parameters, values, and assumptions outlined by the prob- lem. For groups that have been given a particular problem to solve, problem framing repre- sents the beginning of the problem-solving process, and it is absolutely essential for quality solutions. However, as we saw in the Coast team case study, this step is often overlooked or mishandled.

The fast pace of today’s work settings reflects the dynamism of the modern marketplace. Rapid turnaround times are not only expected, but often necessary to keep up with an orga- nization’s need for competitive performance. As a result, group members may feel pressured to skip problem framing or move too quickly through it, without gaining any real understand- ing of the problem they need to solve. The initial framing of a problem, however, may be the single most impactful element in determining the number and quality of potential solutions, the time needed to generate them, and the ability of the group or team to find a viable solution (Posner, 1973).

Problem framing involves clarifying and interpreting the problem definition—the core issue that needs to be addressed in order to find a desired solution. This does not always mirror the initial directives given to group members. For example, a marketing team may be told to come up with a strategy to increase product sales to women. However, in framing the prob- lem, the team may discover a root cause for poor sales, such as a popular perception that the product is unhealthy. The problem then becomes: How do we change customers’ perception of our product? Addressing this core issue would satisfy the initial directive to find a way to increase sales to women and will likely have the additional benefit of increasing sales in other demographic markets as well.

The problem definition profoundly impacts the strategies and approach group members take in generating potential solutions because it (Bardwell, 1991):

• outlines the basic needs that the problem represents; • indicates problem parameters, or guidelines that set the bounds for what can and

cannot be done; and • sets fundamental values and assumptions.

Each of these functions is critical to understanding the nature of a given problem, and together, they dictate the basic outline of the problem’s solution space. Let’s return to the Coast exam- ple. The original problem definition used by the Coast soap team specified two basic needs: (a) create a green-striped soap bar and (b) outperform Irish Spring. The appearance and per- formance of Irish Spring therefore set parameters on how the new soap bar should look and perform. The original problem definition placed high value on the scientific formulation of the soap, discounting any need for creative design outside of the set parameters, based on the assumption that Irish Spring’s success was all due to its novel appearance.

Rather than questioning these directives and developing a clear understanding of the prob- lem and its core issues, the team accepted the problem definition as given and moved imme- diately into solution generation and testing. The lack of proper framing resulted in failed solutions and wasted time, effort, and resources, as the team ultimately realized that their problem definition was too limited for an effective solution. To succeed, the problem had to

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 180 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

be reframed. Reframing represents a shift in perspective that involves discontinuing the cur- rent course and taking the time to reevaluate and reinterpret the problem definition. Though ultimately successful, the new product development team wasted nearly 6 months working a poorly defined problem. This illustrates how important it is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of a problem and define the problem in a way that sup- ports rather than inhibits productive ideation. Later in the chapter, we will take another look at problem definition and reframing and the impact these have on group creativity.

Once a problem has been properly framed, problem solvers can begin to seek a solution.

Step 3: Generating Solutions Generating solutions is a complex group process that includes activities such as selecting an approach to ideation and problem solving, formulating possible solutions, undertaking inter- active and noninteractive ideation activities, and generating convergent and divergent ideas. In its first attempt to solve the problem they were given, the Coast soap team focused on sci- entific aspects of the soap’s formulation. The soap’s appearance and marketing points were considered as set—they were basically tasked with creating a “look-alike” soap that could be marketed as performing better than Irish Spring. Although they tried many ideas, the team failed to achieve the desired results and ultimately decided to address the problem in a new way.

After the second round of problem framing, the team’s revised problem definition called for the development of an entirely new soap that would embody the same elements that made Irish Spring so successful—an innovative appearance and a sensual experience—and do so better than that original soap bar. To achieve this, the Coast soap team engaged in brainstorming, a group ideation activity that involves the mass contribution of spontaneously developed ideas and solutions that then influence and build upon further contributions within the session, or period of time in which the brainstorming occurs. Ideation activities refer to exercises and activities that foster creativity and help generate unique ideas. In this case brainstorming led to a creative combination of ideas that resulted in Coast soap’s trademark appearance, odor, and shape.

Once multiple solutions have been generated, they must be tested for applicability, effective- ness, and potential errors or flaws. This brings us to step 4.

Step 4: Testing Solutions Solution testing refers to the process of critically evaluating solution alternatives. Core activi- ties in this step include exploring and critically analyzing solution options; developing key criteria or standards for evaluation and improvement; evaluating solutions in terms of their potential for success; searching for inherent errors, flaws, or weaknesses; finding potential implementation problems; and exploring alternative ways to solve problems. Flaws or weak- nesses found during this stage are addressed to strengthen each potential solution. Solution testing weeds out the weakest options and identifies (generation) issues nested within viable solutions that must be addressed before any option can be selected for implementation. The problem-solving cycle repeats, since addressing these problems or generating alternatives to replace weak solutions requires moving through previous cycle stages with new problem inputs.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 181 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

Recycling through the stages is not necessarily a lengthy process. Unless the team decides that its initial problem framing is faulty, the framing and ideation process for nested problems are guided by the team’s existing understanding of the primary problem and its core issues and needs. This generally helps speed the process of framing and solution generation for nested problems (although some can be quite complex), leading the team into productive discussions that maintain a relative balance between ideation and evaluation (Isaksen et al., 2011). Test- ing of the Coast soap team’s initial solutions resulted in only partial success. While the team was able to create soap that looked similar to Irish Spring, it was not successful in surpassing its competitor’s performance in blind testing of the soap bars. This led the team to conclude that its original problem framing was indeed faulty. The team had to go back and begin again.

Once viable solutions have been determined through solution testing, problem-solving teams move on to the fifth step: selecting a solution.

Step 5: Selecting a Solution Selecting a solution includes activities such as comprehending and agreeing on the criteria of an optimal solution. This typically involves knowledge sharing and constructive conflict. Resolving poor communication and dysfunctional conflict are often required as well. A solu- tion’s effectiveness may depend on the level of acceptance, commitment to follow through, and support it garners in terms of human and material resources to carry it out (Isaksen et al., 2011). It is therefore important that group members fully participate in the selection process. Members should also keep in mind that while each individual may have developed particular attachments to one solution or another, the solution outcome is the result of a major collab- orative effort—and should reflect the option that the group collectively believes to be the best.

Of course, the term best is open to interpretation and assumption. Members need to con- sciously decide what optimal means for the problem they are addressing and work toward maintaining constructive rather than dysfunctional conflict. Although the Coast example does not illustrate the selection process, we do know its result: agreeing to select and combine two specific ideas—the image and experience of standing at the seacoast, and sitting on a beach looking at blue-and-white clouds—both of which engage natural elements to invoke refreshment.

Once solution selections have been agreed on, group energies shift to the sixth step: putting them into effect.

Step 6: Putting the Solution Into Effect Putting the solution into effect involves developing and coordinating an implementation plan. Other activities include sequencing action steps, formulating and organizing a schedule, coor- dinating material and human resources, communicating all of the necessary information and details to others, and addressing problems as they arise.

It is extremely important for groups at this stage to remember that an implementation plan becomes more complex as more people become involved. As an implementation plan grows to accommodate and coordinate more people, it will also need to become more comprehen- sive and explicit, and it will require a greater degree of cooperation and collaboration. The task of explaining the solution and its implementation plan becomes more difficult as well,

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 182 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

since the explanations must be reduced to a simple clarity and meaning that is easily commu- nicated—even when done second- and thirdhand. While the solution itself may be a product of divergent and innovative thinking, developing the implementation plan will require a more systematic, structured approach.

During the implementation process, the Coast soap team encountered a patent issue in the design of its soap manufacturing machinery. At the time, there were at least six worldwide patents placing restrictions on how blue-and-white soap pastes could be blended during the manufacturing process. The Coast soap team quickly assembled a cheetah team with cross- functional membership that included engineers, technicians, and lawyers to solve the prob- lems in the machinery design so its new product could be legally manufactured and released. We can infer that putting the solution into effect also involved coordinating the manufactur- ing process, product release, and all the people and resources involved, as well as designing and implementing the marketing campaign.

Although putting a solution into effect may seem like the end of the problem-solving process, the final step actually involves checking the solution.

Step 7: Checking the Solution Checking the solution involves monitoring outcomes to identify and resolve potential issues and to determine their relative success (or failure). To do this, group members must identify key feedback points in the process. They do so by formulating agreed-upon checkpoints and criteria markers to measure solution progress and by monitoring solution implementation and its consequences and effects (including feedback and progress tracking). These perfor- mance indicators might include:

• personnel placed in key process areas; • social media buzz; • specific criteria that can be used to track and measure effectiveness over time, such

as productivity or financial return within a specific time interval; • customer and employee satisfaction; and • clear objectives that can be periodically measured or met, such as a manufacturing

or sales goal.

Solution monitoring may be carried out by the problem-solving team, or it may be handed off to other individuals and teams. Although it comes at the end of the process, solution check- ing is a core component of solution effectiveness. The immediate and lasting success of Coast soap represents major criteria indicating the effectiveness of the solution over time, as well as customer satisfaction with the product.

Now that we have thoroughly explored the group problem-solving process, let’s examine the role creativity plays in problem solving. In the next section, we look at major elements that enhance or dampen group creativity, tactics for managing them, and strategies for effective group ideation.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 183 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving Alex Osborn coined the term creative problem solving in 1953 to describe complex problem solving geared toward innovative and creative solutions. Today innovative and creative solu- tions have become organizational imperatives. Globalization and the online marketplace have created a customer base that is not only more diverse, but more informed about products and services, competitive pricing, and what other customers think about quality and satis- faction—and they have developed a taste and expectancy for “new” and “better” variations of both goods and services (Santanen et al., 2004). To stay competitive, organizations have adopted creativity as a formal strategy, and their policies reflect this. Based on the idea that innovation begins by recognizing the problems of the customer, for example, newly hired research and development scientists and engineers at Toshiba spend the beginning of their tenure in the sales department, developing their problem-recognition skills (Basadur, 1992). Likewise, the 3M Company has established innovation as a measurable component of its corporate strategy, maintaining objectives such as 30% of the 3M products offered in every 5-year period must be new (Basadur & Gelade, 2006).

Creativity does not just automatically happen when we work in groups, however. Problem framing, cognitive style, and negative factors such as evaluation apprehension, lack of con- structive communication, and production blocking all impact our ability to access diverse frames of reference to generate creative solutions. In this section, we outline strategies for dealing with all of these issues. Let’s begin by looking at how problem framing can impact our creativity.

Framing for Innovation Recall that problem framing occurs early in the problem-solving process and involves exam- ining and clarifying the nature of a given problem, its associated elements, and context. Prob- lem solvers can impact their access to creative solutions by consciously managing problem framing to deliberately limit or expand the solution space. But how does this work? Recall that while convergent and divergent thinking are both needed to solve complex problems, one or the other of these styles can become dominant, as problems slide toward either the defined or wicked end of the spectrum. We can control this shift by selecting a defined or wicked problem definition. Consider the following problem scenario:

I live 10 miles from work, and my car gets 30 mpg. I’d like to reduce my fuel consumption for economic reasons. I’d like a list of alternatives to my car’s current consumption.

Table 5.2 shows the variations in framing this problem using convergent or divergent thinking.

Limiting the solution to the top 10 car choices that combine economy of fuel and price nar- rows the solution space to a specific number of options that can be critically examined and ranked. Placing no limit on the number or type of options for reducing fuel consumption dra- matically broadens the solution space to include diverse possibilities such as biking, carpool- ing, taking public transportation, working remotely from home, moving to a living space that is closer to work, changing jobs, and so on. We can thus see how problem framing can be used to limit or expand the solution space.

Table 5.2: Convergent versus divergent problem framing

Framing for convergent thinking Framing for divergent thinking

Style description Convergent thinking requires a finite set of options in which the answer is demonstrably correct.

Divergent thinking calls for a poten- tially infinite solution set depending on the interpretation of the problem definition.

Action Impose further parameters that limit the number and type of options.

Deliberately choose a problem definition that allows for the greatest amount of freedom while still satisfy- ing the situation parameters.

Problem definition Determine a list of top 10 new car choices that combine economy of fuel and price to own.

List economically viable options that will help reduce my fuel consumption.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 184 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

So why is this important? To solve complex problems, we develop unique and supportive combinations of convergent and divergent thinking. The above example illustrates just how easy it can be for a problem and our processing style to slip from one to the other. Under- standing how to deliberately manage this shift enables us to do the following:

• Effectively narrow an overwhelming solution set if project schedule, resources, needs, or member capacities demand it

• Foster creativity by broadening the solution space and enabling the development of diverse interpretations and associations

• Recognize how and when the problem definition influences our problem-solving style and the size of our solution space

• Intentionally adjust our problem-solving style and solution space as needed by reframing the problem

In our step-by-step case study, Proctor & Gamble’s Coast soap team reframed its problem when it reached a point of impasse with its initial problem definition. The team reached that point by failing to question the designated problem definition and engage in a comprehensive problem-framing process. All too often, the desire to appear competent and the drive for suc- cess cause teams to rush through the problem-framing process. They extrapolate basic needs and parameters and follow values and assumptions inherent to a problem definition they never bother to question. Cultural conditioning is also partly to blame. Societal norms gen- erated through our experience with family, learning institutions, law enforcement, and the military suggest that we follow authoritative directives without seriously questioning their fundamental nature or essential function. In creative problem solving, questioning the status quo can be paramount, and the task of problem framing is used not just to correct an error but to expand the solution space and enhance creativity by reinterpreting the given problem definition.

I live 10 miles from work, and my car gets 30 mpg. I’d like to reduce my fuel consumption for economic reasons. I’d like a list of alternatives to my car’s current consumption.

Table 5.2 shows the variations in framing this problem using convergent or divergent thinking.

Table 5.2: Convergent versus divergent problem framing

Framing for convergent thinking Framing for divergent thinking

Style description Convergent thinking requires a finite set of options in which the answer is demonstrably correct.

Divergent thinking calls for a poten- tially infinite solution set depending on the interpretation of the problem definition.

Action Impose further parameters that limit the number and type of options.

Deliberately choose a problem definition that allows for the greatest amount of freedom while still satisfy- ing the situation parameters.

Problem definition Determine a list of top 10 new car choices that combine economy of fuel and price to own.

List economically viable options that will help reduce my fuel consumption.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 185 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Concepts in Action: Lessons in Reframing: “What’s in a Name (Tag)?” On the first day of teaching her class on creativity and innovation at Stanford’s design school, Dr. Tina Seelig (2012) asked students to redesign their name tags, pointing out that the origi- nals were poorly placed (at the belt line) with small, difficult-to-read text that offered little useful information about or insight into an individual. The students set to work, assuming that Seelig’s statement about the original name tags’ deficiencies outlined the basic parameters of a clearly defined problem—to design a better name tag by addressing those issues. Not 20 minutes later, Seelig’s students proudly faced her with new, hand-decorated name tags that featured names and quick facts in large, clear text and were prominently pinned to their shirt- fronts. They had efficiently solved the given problem—but was efficiency the most desirable outcome? Seelig collected the new tags, tossed them into a paper shredder, and asked, “Why do we use name tags at all?”

The professor was not trying to devalue their efforts or suggest that name tags themselves are worthless; she was asking her students to think about the actual purpose the name tags serve, and she invited them to reframe her original challenge to redesign the name tags. A creative dialogue emerged during which the students agreed that name tags attempt to serve a far more sophisticated set of functions than simply displaying one’s name, affiliation, or job title (Seelig, 2012). Name tags theoretically increase comfort by identifying everyone as (a) belonging to the same group and (b) being receptive to interaction. They act as icebreakers, conversation starters, and cue cards for names and other potential avenues for relationship building. Name tags promise acceptance of interaction, demonstrate the desire for increased familiarity, and help strangers discover shared interests. This is a tall order that the quick fact display of most name tags typically does not deliver.

With a new understanding of the problem, student teams set out to design a better name tag by redesigning the name tag concept. In the process, they came up with some very interest- ing innovations. One team threw out the pin tag concept and designed individualized T-shirts that integrated their names, interests, places they had been or lived, and other conversational starting points into a playful mix of text and pictures. Another team focused on the importance of emotional intelligence in fostering meaningful connections and designed its own recon- figurable “mood bracelets.” These assigned colored ribbons to a variety of moods that when combined into the bracelet served as an emotional message board that fostered a sense of closeness and empathy between individuals and acted as conversation starters (Seelig, 2012).

Reframing the problem offered a deeper understanding of what students were trying to accom- plish, and the benefits of the experience were both immediate and long lasting. In the moment of the project, they were able to shift from simple efficiency to more meaningful effectiveness. The deeper knowledge they gained of a name tag’s purpose and the memory of their reframing experience will serve to enhance their confidence, comfort, and openness in future icebreaker situations, even when the name tags themselves are mostly mundane. More importantly, the students learned that they do not need to be controlled by a problem or issue; they can take charge of the problem-solving process and enhance their own effectiveness through problem framing or reframing. As Seelig (2012) puts it, “The simple process of asking ‘why’ questions provides an incredibly useful tool for expanding the landscape of solutions for a problem.. . . When I asked why we use name tags, the scope of solutions expanded exponentially” (p. 22).

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. What mistake did the Coast soap team and Seelig’s student teams both make at the

beginning of their problem-solving process? 2. Describe how the student teams were limited by the initial problem definition. Outline

how the problem changed in the reframing and how that enabled the problem’s solution space to be significantly expanded.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 186 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Adaptation Innovation• Convergent thinking

• Structured process

• Solutions that improve upon an existing idea or process

• Divergent thinking

• Flexible process

• Solutions that introduce novel and diverse concepts

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Creativity and Cognitive Style Cognitive diversity reflects a form of personality variation based on cognitive style. Cognitive styles (defined in Chapter 4) affect how we think, solve problems, and deal with change. Kirton’s (2003) adaptation–innovation theory proposes that individual cognitive styles fall on a sliding scale between adaption and innovation (see Figure 5.3), and an individual’s place- ment on this continuum deeply affects their approach to problem-solving.

Figure 5.3: The adaption innovation continuum

Adaptation Innovation• Convergent thinking

• Structured process

• Solutions that improve upon an existing idea or process

• Divergent thinking

• Flexible process

• Solutions that introduce novel and diverse concepts

Group members with adaptive tendencies prefer problem-solving activities that are more structured and tend toward convergent thinking. They also prefer solutions that improve on an existing idea or process. Meanwhile, those with innovative tendencies prefer more flex- ibility in process activities and tend toward divergent thinking. They prefer solutions that introduce novel and diverse concepts (Kirton, 2003). Differences in cognitive style can create tension over how to generate and select solutions and can stymie agreement on what consti- tutes an optimal solution.

Cognitive style also impacts how we perceive creativity in others and in ourselves. As indi- viduals with adaptive tendencies prefer structured process and convergent thinking, there is a tendency to view them as very rational but limited in creativity. Likewise, individuals with innovative tendencies are considered highly creative but prone to illogical reasoning and flights of fancy. These viewpoints often become ingrained in members’ self-images, and inhibit them from moving beyond these limited stereotypes. Both viewpoints are based on the idea that creativity and rationality cannot go hand in hand. Yet, we know that complex problems require both convergent and divergent thinking, and the idea that we can only asso- ciate disparate frames by making innovative leaps is a myth as well.

Creativity can just as easily arise from a series of small adaptive changes—and it often does. For example, Mario may notice a particular tree outside his office window, then move through a cognitive sequence that goes something like: tree, treehouse, childhood backyard, Mama call- ing me in to eat, home-cooked spaghetti carbonara. Mario then turns to his coworkers and abruptly suggests Italian for lunch. Through unconscious incremental adaptation, Mario forged a link between two remote and seemingly unrelated frames of reference: a tree and spaghetti carbonara. Linking objects and ideas in this way is a common cognitive process.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 187 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Although many people think creativity is a special quality of personality or cognition, we all engage in creative thinking daily (Benedek et al., 2012). It is important to view creativity as a normal, natural, and useful process that everyone can access, since our ability to think outside the box is impacted by whether we believe that we can do so and that our ideas are worthwhile (Glassman, 1989). Regarding adaptive individuals as less creative and more ratio- nal cuts both ways. The innovative tendency to make associative leaps can lead to seemingly unconnected or even nonsensical ideas; however, these can also lead to concrete solutions.

The term creative problem solving implies that ideas are both innovative and useful. Useful- ness in creativity, however, goes beyond the simple bounds of practical utility. It includes activities, experiences, and ideas that may seem superficially whimsical, pointless, or even bizarre, but which may significantly contribute to an effective solution. For example, during a brainstorming session about how to remove ice buildup from power lines in the Cascade mountain range, one team member at the utility company joked that they should train bears to climb up and shake the ice loose (Glassman, 1989). Another suggested they use helicopters to place honey pots on top of the poles to motivate the bears to climb up them. This seem- ingly unproductive series of idea “jests” actually led to the final solution: periodically flying helicopters over the telephone wires to create downdrafts that shake the ice buildup from the lines, a technique that is still used today.

Regardless of individual cognitive style, group members can meaningfully contribute to cre- ative and effective solutions—especially when they support each other by seeing the value in their differences and working together. Labeling individual styles and efforts as uncreative or impractical propagates a limiting stereotype and can contribute to social loafing, evaluation apprehension, and lack of constructive communication. Group members may be hesitant to share information or ideas because they are new to the group or to group work, or because they fear being judged by others. They may also unintentionally inhibit one another by jump- ing too quickly into critical analysis—shutting down the ideation process before it really gets off the ground. To mitigate these issues, group leaders and managers use a range of group ideation activities, most of which stem from Osborn’s traditional brainstorming process.

Group Ideation Activities Group ideation activities have been applied in a wide variety of settings to help problem solv- ers express and explore diverse ideas and avoid limiting solution options by coming to con- clusions too rapidly. Most of these activities have their basis in brainstorming, developed by Alex Osborn in 1939 in response to frustrating experiences with group ideation in the field of creative advertising. Osborn specifically tried to address tendencies toward social loafing, evaluation apprehension, and lack of constructive communication by instituting four basic principles (Osborn, 1953):

1. Critical thinking takes a break. Brainstorming is about creating an idea generating space; criticism and analysis are left at the door.

2. Freewheeling is encouraged. Since the idea is to stimulate unconstrained and uninhib- ited thinking, communication space is given to any and all ideas, regardless of appar- ent seriousness or practicality.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 188 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

3. First quantity, then quality. Brainstorming works on the premise that it takes a large eclectic mix of ideas to come up with the one we later define as a winner. Since judg- ing or analyzing ideas is put on hold until after the ideation session, quality is a moot point. Groups are encouraged to think up and voice as many ideas as they can.

4. Combine, build, and innovate. Like players in a Mad Libs game, participants are encouraged to combine and build on previous ideas to come up with something new and interesting. This is known as idea piggybacking.

Unfortunately, brainstorming did not initially fulfill its promise of enhancing group creativ- ity and ideation. Although brainstorming immediately gained popularity as a group ideation activity, it was some years before researchers discovered that actively guiding the process was the key to achieving consistently effective results (Kramer et al., 2001).

Guided Brainstorming Traditional, nonguided brainstorming is known as free brainstorming. In free brainstorming, a problem or issue is given to a group as a prompt, or focal point for stimulating ideas. The group is then told to brainstorm ideas or solutions based on the prompt for a set period of time (e.g., 20 to 40 minutes). Unfortunately, when initially attempted, free brainstorming left groups vulnerable to process loss due to two of the primary pitfalls of group problem solv- ing—evaluation apprehension and production blocking. In fact, this once caused researchers to denounce brainstorming as an effective tool for interactive ideation (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991). Further study proved that with proper guidance, brainstorming does fulfill its promise as an effective tool for group creativity (Kramer et al., 2001). This premise has given rise to many variations on the technique. Let’s look at two popular variants: directed brainstorming and brain writing.

Directed brainstorming involves giving the group a series of preconstructed prompts at spe- cific time intervals during the session. While groups that engage in directed brainstorming tend to outperform free brainstormers in terms of solution creativity and quality, researchers have found that this positive outcome is relative to the timing of their prompt topic changes (Santanen et al., 2004). In a comprehensive study of directed brainstorming, Santanen and colleagues (2004) found that group creativity improved during sessions when prompt topics consistently changed at either 8- or 2-minute intervals, but diminished when prompt topics changed at 4-minute intervals (see Figure 5.4).

Why did group creativity suffer at the midpoint between 2 and 8 minutes? In group ideation activities, creative inspiration is spurred by the juxtaposition and association of diverse frames of reference (Benedek et al., 2012). Topic changes at 2 minutes offered group mem- bers the highest exposure to diverse frames—and consequently the most inspiration. Eight- minute topic changes offered them more time for idea piggybacking. The middle ground, at 4 minutes, offered neither high frame diversity nor enough time for piggyback ideas (San- tanen et al., 2004). So what does this mean for creativity and group problem solving? Essen- tially, effective ideation occurs when brainstorming groups have high exposure to diverse frames and adequate time for idea piggybacking. This knowledge, coupled with the attempt to eliminate production blocking, spawned another popular variant known as brain writing.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 189 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Prompt topics change every 4 min.

Prompt topics change every 2 min. or every 8 min.

Group Creativity Increases

Group Creativity Decreases

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Brain writing is a guided brainstorming technique involving limited, written interaction. The group is seated around a table, and each member is given a pen and a blank sheet of paper. Once the initial prompt is given, each person writes down an idea or suggestion and then passes the sheet to the person to their right. Each group member reads the sheet they were given and uses it as a prompt for a new idea or suggestion before passing it along to the next person. The cycle repeats until the end of the ideation session. Variations on this theme include replacing the pass-it-along system with putting the papers in the middle of the table and randomly selecting a new paper from the pile, and adding options such as responding to previous ideas with either a new idea, a piggybacked idea, or a suggestion for improvement or alteration. This technique can easily be adapted to online groups and chat forums, as well. Brain writing is often integrated with directed brainstorming and other ideation strategies, such as paradigm shift and idea mapping. Originally created as helpmeets for brainstorming, paradigm shift and idea mapping have since been acknowledged as effective ideation strate- gies in their own right and can be used with or without a group.

Paradigm Shift and Idea Mapping Whereas brainstorming strategies focus on stimulating creativity by changing the external conditions of ideation, paradigm shift and idea mapping are aimed at changing the internal conditions—how we perceive and think about information and concepts during the ideation process. A paradigm is a conceptual framework of ideas, values, theories, and assumptions that affect our approach to a situation or problem. A very simple paradigm, for example,

Figure 5.4: Brainstorming and group creativity

The middle ground didn’t offer enough time or diversity for brainstorming groups to excel.

Prompt topics change every 4 min.

Prompt topics change every 2 min. or every 8 min.

Group Creativity Increases

Group Creativity Decreases

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 190 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

specifies that boats float on water. What if they floated on land? This paradigm shift could be responsible for modern-day hovercrafts—boats that use air cushions to float on either land or water. In paradigm shift ideation activities, members are asked to shift perspective on a particular problem or prompt, as our example just illustrated. Paradigm shift can also be used to consider a problem in distinct contexts. For example, using separate sessions to brainstorm ideas for developing a marketing campaign that is (a) the most cost-effective, (b) integrated with social media, and (c) eco-friendly. The best ideas from each of these ses- sions can then be selected and combined to formulate a marketing campaign that encom- passes all three of these elements.

Another popular way to use paradigm shift is by “flipping” the assumptions within brain- storming prompts. For example, an initial brainstorming session could consist of this assump- tion and prompt: Cars need gas, so brainstorm ways to make our vehicles more fuel-efficient. However, flipping the assumption results in a new prompt: Cars do not need gas, so come up with alternate fuel sources. This type of shift, known as 180-degree thinking, was behind the development of hybrid and electric cars. Paradigm shift changes the way we perceive and think about information and concepts before we ideate. Idea mapping, on the other hand, is meant to be used after some initial ideation has occurred.

Idea mapping involves the spontaneous creation of a diagram that visually organizes the relationships between all of the ideas or concepts we associate with a specific prompt (Far- rand, Hussain, & Hennessy, 2002). In groups, idea mapping typically begins by placing a single word or concept in the center of a white board. Related thoughts and ideas are called out and placed radially around the prompt, with major ideas in direct connection and subordinate ideas or information branching and rebranching away from the center. Idea mapping tangibly illustrates concepts to help group members see connections between various ideas, concepts, and information. This visual guide enables the following:

• Better use of cognitive resources: Group members do not have to spend mental energy trying to internally recall ideas or recognize the connections between them. Instead, they can focus on deepening their understanding of these concepts based on their relatedness, and how they could further develop key ideas or solutions.

• Clearer vision in critical evaluation: Visually mapping the connections between infor- mation and concepts enhances our ability to separate them into categories; remove redundancies; recognize when ideas build on one another or are variations on a theme; and allows us to compare and contrast their relative value.

• Greater potential for creative combinations: Creativity happens when we associate ideas or concepts that are typically unconnected. Idea mapping helps this occur by encouraging the group to make and see connections between ideas and concepts and showing them in visual juxtaposition. Acting within a mindset of finding con- nections, group members can more easily associate concepts from relatively uncon- nected areas of their map.

Due to these benefits, idea mapping if often used as an in-between step that occurs after brain- storming to enhance the next session of ideation or evaluation. Idea mapping is used across many settings to enhance conceptual understanding, evaluation, and creative idea generation (Murley, 2007; Shih, Nguyen, Hirano, Redmiles, & Hayes, 2009). Creative ideation in groups can be a highly effective tool in complex problem solving, particularly those that require cre- ativity and innovation. Due the high flow of information during group ideation sessions, how- ever, these activities do have their own special drawback: information overload.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 191 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

Information Overload Groups and teams that participate in brainstorming and other ideation activities need to be mindful of information overload, a cognitive dysfunction that occurs when groups generate so many ideas that the information becomes overwhelming and people begin to block it out and stop paying attention. Information overload can lead to feelings of detachment, weari- ness, anxiety, or irritation with the group process, and by association, with other members. Members who are still functionally contributing may feel they are over contributing to the group discussion. This can result in a few ideas dominating the discussion, which dampens communication and ideation if other members decide to stop contributing. It can also fos- ter resentment if a perception grows that overloaded members are free riding. All of these reactions can be detrimental to group creativity, problem solving, and process in general. To mitigate information overload, experts suggest structuring group ideation activities into an alternating pattern of interactive and noninteractive intervals to let participants process and reflect on the ideas they are generating (Kohn, Paulus, & Chois, 2011).

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

Problems come in all shapes and sizes. Finding lost car keys, dealing with a scheduling con- flict, organizing financial resources to pay for a new home, and designing a self-driving car all require problem solving. Contemporary organizations use problem solving continuously, to resolve simple snags in everyday business processes, deal with more complex interper- sonal issues within their workforce, and foster the innovation required to stay competitive in the global marketplace. Throughout this process, decision-making is a silent but sig- nificant partner. Although all problem solving inherently requires decision-making, group decision-making is a complex process deserving of its own detailed examination. We explore this topic in Chapter 6, examining the process by which group decisions are made, and how group members select one option over another.

Chapter Summary

• Complex problems often require a combination of convergent and divergent thinking.

• Groups are typically better at addressing complex problems than individuals—even those with superlative KSAs.

• The major advantage of working in groups is the ability to access a broad range of collective KSAs and experience.

• By engaging in collaborative performance, groups share assets and resources, broaden diversity and range of approach, and generate enhanced comprehension and optimization, both in process and for the final product or outcome.

• Problem solving occurs in a four-stage cycle. This becomes a circular process for complex problems, which tend to have a series of smaller problems and issues nested within them.

• The group problem-solving process can be broken down into seven steps: 1. Recognizing the problem 2. Framing the problem 3. Generating solutions 4. Testing solutions 5. Selecting a solution 6. Putting the solution into effect 7. Checking the solution

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 192 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

• Evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and destructive criticism are the major pitfalls of the group problem-solving process, all of which can contribute to and be worsened by lack of participation and poor communication.

• Problem framing is a critical factor in determining the number and quality of poten- tial solutions, the time needed to generate them, and the ability of the team to find a viable solution. The way in which a problem is framed can also impact the group’s ability to seek creative solutions.

• Cognitive style profoundly affects our approach to creative problem solving and the way we view others and ourselves in terms of creative ability.

• In truth, creativity is a normal, natural, and useful process that everyone can access. Regardless of individual cognitive style, all group members can meaningfully con- tribute to creative and effective solutions.

• Supporting and valuing cognitive diversity is key. Labeling individual styles and efforts as uncreative or impractical propagates a limiting stereotype and can contribute to social loafing, evaluation apprehension, and lack of constructive communication.

• The basic interaction principles of traditional brainstorming were built to deflect the major obstacles to group ideation and creativity, but brainstorming is most effective when properly structured and guided. Using brainstorming in tandem with other ideation activities and tactics is useful as well.

• While brainstorming focuses on stimulating creativity by changing the external con- ditions of ideation, paradigm shift and idea mapping are aimed at changing internal conditions—how we perceive and think about information and concepts during the ideation process.

• All group ideation activities are vulnerable to information overload. To mitigate this, experts suggest constructing group ideation activities into an alternating pattern of interactive and noninteractive intervals that allow both ideation and reflection.

Posttest

1. Problems that are straightforward, need no complex interpretation, and have defini- tively right and wrong answers are classified as __________. a. wicked problems b. defined problems c. ideation activities d. framing problems

2. Classic brainstorming principles encourage all of the following EXCEPT __________. a. whimsical suggestions b. multiple solution options c. critical analysis d. idea piggybacking

3. __________ represent major pitfalls in the group problem-solving process. a. Social loafing, convergent thinking, and skill diversity b. Production blocking, problem framing, and miscommunication c. Evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and poor communication d. Conflict and communication breakdown

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 193 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

4. The problem-solving cycle applies to __________. a. wicked problems b. defined problems c. large problems d. all problems

5. There are __________ steps in the problem-solving process. a. four b. eight c. two d. seven

6. __________ may be the single most impactful element in determining the number and quality of potential solutions, the time needed to generate them, and the ability of the team to find a viable solution. a. Creative ideation b. Convergent thinking c. Framing the problem d. Solution optimization

7. Complex problem solving requires all of the following EXCEPT __________. a. convergent thinking b. divergent thinking c. conscientious problem framing d. teamwork

8. Groups help mitigate our cognitive limitations on __________. a. convergent thinking b. problem definition c. information processing d. wicked problems

9. In the conceptualization stage, it is particularly important to __________ before moving into ideation. a. recognize the problem b. define the problem c. select an ideation activity d. identify the solution space

10. All of the following are true about problem definition EXCEPT __________. a. it has a major impact on the solution-generating process b. it is part of the problem-framing process c. it outlines the basic need a problem represents d. it represents a problem parameter that cannot be changed

Answers: b, c, c, d, d, c, d, c, b, d.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 194 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Explain the concept of “opportunistic surveillance” and its significance in the prob- lem solving process.

2. Section 5.5 offered an example of everyday creativity that showed how a tree could be linked to spaghetti carbonara. Recall and describe one instance in which you con- sciously or unconsciously established a link between remote and seemingly unre- lated frames of reference.

3. Watch Tom Wujec’s Got a Wicked Problem? First, Tell Me How You Make Toast. Then, using the information and concepts from this chapter: a. Identify the point at which idea piggybacking began to occur within the problem-

solving groups and explain its significance. b. Explain why working in complete silence fostered group effectiveness in the

groups shown. c. Explain why the groups developed more effective instruction models for toast

making than individuals.

Additional Resources Links

• Collaboration Beats Smarts in Group Problem Solving: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130247631

• 4 Ways to Brush Up Your Problem-Solving Skills: http://www.forbes.com/sites/barbaraarmstrong/2012/10/24/ painting-and-problem-solving-four-lessons-from-my-fall-retreat/#3a713a177e12

Videos

• Dance vs. PowerPoint: A Modest Proposal: https://www.ted.com/talks/john_bohannon_dance_vs_powerpoint_a_modest_pro- posal

• How to Manage for Collective Creativity: https://www.ted.com/talks/linda_hill_how_to_manage_for_collective_creativity

• Creative Problem Solving in the Face of Extreme Limits: https://www.ted.com/talks/navi_radjou_creative_problem_solving_in_the_face_of_ extreme_limits

• Doodlers, Unite! https://www.ted.com/talks/sunni_brown

• What Do We Do With All This Big Data: https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_etlinger_what_do_we_do_with_all_this_big_data

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. In complex problem solving, each new problem that arises within the larger problem-solving process follows the four-stage cycle from beginning to end. Because of this, many view complex problem solving as a circular process, wherein the stages flow continuously and sequentially into one another for as long as the problem solvers remain engaged in the process.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 195 8/19/16 9:35 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130247631

http://www.forbes.com/sites/barbaraarmstrong/2012/10/24/painting-and-problem-solving-four-lessons-from-my-fall-retreat/#3a713a177e12

https://www.ted.com/talks/john_bohannon_dance_vs_powerpoint_a_modest_proposal

https://www.ted.com/talks/linda_hill_how_to_manage_for_collective_creativity

https://www.ted.com/talks/navi_radjou_creative_problem_solving_in_the_face_of_extreme_limits

https://www.ted.com/talks/sunni_brown

https://www.ted.com/talks/susan_etlinger_what_do_we_do_with_all_this_big_data

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

2. False. Production blocking occurs when members are distracted from their think- ing processes or unable to verbalize their ideas as they occur, resulting in ideas being suppressed or lost. This tends to occur in the fast-paced or energetic discussions that typically surround group interactions involving ideation, conflict, and debate.

3. True. Because they have access to a greater diversity of expertise, perspective, and approach, groups tend to be better at solving complex problems than indi- viduals—even individuals who have special knowledge, skills, and abilities.

4. False. While these two cognitive problem-solving styles are near polar opposites, they work surprisingly well together, and complex problem solving calls for a unique blend of both.

5. False. The myth that innovative thinking cannot be taught but is inborn would have us believe that creativity is a special quality of personality or cognition, but we all engage in creative thinking every day.

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Defined problems are characterized as being straightforward, without need for complex interpretation, and having solutions that are demonstrably repeatable and correct.

2. The principles of brainstorming encourage freewheeling ideation of as many ideas as possible, including the whimsical or even bizarre. However, the group may gener- ate so many ideas that members experience information overload, begin trying to block out too much information, and stop paying attention.

3. Evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and poor communication are the major pitfalls of the group problem-solving process.

4. The four-stage life cycle sequence represents a broad view of the problem-solving process that can be applied to problems of any type.

5. There are seven steps to the problem-solving process: recognizing the problem, framing the problem, generating solutions, testing solutions, selecting a solution, putting the solution into effect, and checking the solution.

6. Problem framing describes the process of examining and clarifying the essential nature of a given problem. This process generates the problem definition and may be the single most impactful element in determining the number and quality of poten- tial solutions, the time needed to generate them, and the ability of the team to find a viable solution.

7. While teamwork often results in higher quality solutions to complex problems, it is not required—individuals can and do solve complex problems. What complex prob- lem solving does require is a mix of convergent and divergent thinking, and because the way in which we frame a problem dictates our interpretation, problem defini- tion, and solution space, conscientious problem framing is critical for success.

8. Just as working with others can help us perform more physical labor than we could accomplish working alone, groups enable us to carry heavier mental loads. Humans have a finite capacity to process information. Working collaboratively allows group members to join forces to mitigate this problem.

9. Recognizing the problem comes first, in the generation stage. In conceptualization, we begin to address the problem. While selecting an ideation activity can be help- ful, it is important to define the problem before ideation so that we understand the nature of the problem, what we are trying to accomplish in solving it, and what our solution space includes.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 196 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

10. Clarifying or constructing the problem definition is part of the problem-framing process. Problem definition has a major impact on the solution-generating process because it outlines the basic needs a problem represents, indicates parameters, and sets fundamental values and assumptions. Problem definition can be reevaluated and changed by simply reframing the problem.

Key Terms

adaptation–innovation theory A theory that asserts that individual cognitive styles fall on a sliding scale between adaption and innovation; where a person is placed on this continuum deeply affects his or her approach to problem solving.

brainstorming A group ideation activity that features spontaneously developed ideas and solutions that influence and build on further contributions.

brain writing A facilitated brainstorm- ing technique that involves limited, written interaction.

complex problems A series of nested prob- lems that are neither concretely defined nor wicked.

conceptualization The second stage of the problem-solving cycle that encompasses the period in which effort is spent to understand the nature and scope of a problem and using this knowledge as a basis to imagine and formulate solutions.

constructive criticism Criticism that points out errors, flaws, and weaknesses in members’ task-related ideas, contributions, and efforts for the purpose of strengthening these. It often includes suggestions that aid personal development and performance.

convergent thinking Thinking done in a cognitive problem-solving style that involves using existing knowledge, patterns, and criti- cal thinking to derive the single most correct answer from a finite set of options.

defined problems Straightforward prob- lems that do not require complex interpreta- tion and have solutions that are demonstra- bly correct and repeatable—in other words, those that have definitively right and wrong answers.

destructive criticism Criticism that points out errors, flaws, weaknesses, and other per- ceived negatives in members’ task-related ideas, contributions, and efforts without regard for strengthening these; it tears down personal contributions and performance without offering any assistance to build them back up.

directed brainstorming A guidance tech- nique that involves giving the group a series of preconstructed prompts at specific time intervals during the session.

divergent thinking A cognitive problem- solving style that involves combining exist- ing knowledge or frames of reference in new or unexpected ways to produce a potentially infinite set of solution options.

evaluation apprehension The fear of being negatively perceived and evaluated by others.

generation The first stage in the problem- solving cycle in which problems are dis- covered and recognized but not yet clearly defined or understood.

group problem solving A social process wherein group members seek a solution to a problem or an optimal path to a desired outcome or goal.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 197 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

idea mapping Ideation activity involving the spontaneous creation of a diagram that visually organizes the relationships between all of the ideas or concepts we associate with a specific prompt.

idea piggybacking An ideation technique in which participants combine and build on previous ideas.

ideation The process of generating ideas.

ideation activities Exercises and activi- ties that foster creativity and help generate unique ideas.

implementation The fourth stage of the problem-solving cycle, characterized by activities that put the team’s solution into action and monitor the results.

information overload A cognitive dysfunc- tion that occurs when people defensively block out overwhelming information and lose focus and attention.

optimization The third stage of the problem-solving cycle, encompassing efforts to analyze and critique ideas and solutions from the conceptualization period.

paradigm shift Ideation activities in which members are asked to shift perspective on a particular problem or prompt.

problem definition The core issue or problem that needs to be addressed to find a desired solution.

problem framing The process of examin- ing and clarifying the essential nature of a given problem, its associated elements, and context.

problem solving The complex cognitive and physical process of seeking a solution to a problem or finding a path to a desired outcome or goal.

production blocking A dysfunctional dynamic that occurs when members are distracted from their thinking processes or unable to verbalize their ideas as they occur, resulting in ideas being suppressed or lost.

prompt A focal point for idea stimulation.

reframing A shift in perspective that involves reevaluating and reinterpreting the problem definition.

social loafing The tendency for some members to work below capacity when in a group.

solution space An abstract representation of all the ideas and solutions that can poten- tially lead to a desirable outcome.

wicked problems Multilevel problems that change according to viewpoint.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 198 8/19/16 9:35 AM