chapter

quilan

working_in_groups_5e_ch10.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >chapter

ee eBook Collection

c h a p t e r10Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

chapter outline Group Decision Making

Decision Making and Problem Solving • Decision-Making Methods • Decision-Making Questions • Decision-Making Styles

Structured Problem Solving The Standard Agenda • The Functional Perspective • The Single Question Format

Creative Problem Solving Brainstorming • Nominal Group Technique (NGT) • Decreasing Options Technique (DOT) • Enhancing Group Creativity

Problem-Solving Realities Politics • Preexisting Preferences • Power

study questions � How do decision-making methods and styles reflect dialectic

tensions?

� What do the Standard Agenda, Functional Perspective, and Single Question Format have in common?

� What techniques enhance creative decision making and problem solving?

� In what ways do politics, preexisting preferences, and power affect group problem solving?

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies, Fifth Edition, by Isa N. Engleberg and Dianna R. Wynn. Published by Allyn & Bacon. Copyright © 2010 by Pearson Education, Inc.joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

236 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

Table 10.1 Decision Making and Problem Solving

Decision Making

A judgment: The group chooses an alternative.

• Guilty or not guilty • Hire or not hire • Spend or save

Asks who, what, where, and when.

• Whom should we invite? • What should we discuss? • Where should we meet? • When should we meet?

Problem Solving

A process: The group develops a plan.

• Analyze the problem • Develop options • Debate pros and cons • Select and implement a solution

Asks why and how.

• Why doesn’t our promotional campaign attract students?

• How should we publicize the college’s new programs?

Group Decision Making What do you do when you have to make an important decision? Do you ponder several options and select the most reasonable one? Do you rely on your instincts and do what feels right? Or do you ask other people’s advice and go with the major- ity? Now think about what groups must do when they make collective decisions. Should they use logic, instincts, majority rule, or other methods? As hard as it is to make a personal decision, the difficulties of group decision making are multiplied many times. At the same time, group decision making is often more effective and sat- isfying than decisions made by individuals working alone. In this chapter, we exam- ine the many ways in which groups approach the challenge of making decisions and solving problems.

Decision Making and Problem Solving

Decision making and problem solving are not the same (see Table 10.1). Decision making refers to the “passing of judgment on an issue under consideration” and “the act of reaching a conclusion or making up one’s mind.”1 Group decision making results in a position, opinion, judgment, or action. Most groups make decisions but may not solve problems. For example, hiring committees, juries, and families make decisions. Which applicant is best? Is the accused guilty? Whom should we invite to the wed- ding? Management expert Peter Drucker explains, “A decision is a judgment. It is a choice between alternatives.”2

Problem solving is a more complex process in which groups analyze a problem and develop a plan of action for solving the problem or reducing its harmful effects. For example, if student enrollment has declined significantly, a college faces a serious problem that can jeopardize its future. Problem solving requires a group to make many decisions. Fortunately, there are decision-making and problem-solving proce- dures that can help a group “make up its mind.”

There are many reasons to trust group decision making and problem solving. Sheer numbers enable a group to generate more ideas than a single person working alone. Even more important, a group is better equipped to find rational and workable solu- tions to complex problems. As a rule, group decision making generates more ideas and information, tests and validates more arguments, and produces better solutions to complex problems.3

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

A group of horseback-riding stable owners in the county meets to develop a joint plan for attracting more customers, particularly in light of the recent economic downturn. Three group members own prestigious pri- vate stables that board and train horses for their own- ers. Four members own open-to-the public stables that rent horses by the hour and offer riding lessons. Sally— who owns one of the public stables—agrees to chair their meetings.

All seven group members are competent, hardwork- ing, and interested in increasing business at their sta- bles. At the first meeting, the group agrees to seek consensus when making decisions; all members have to be satisfied with every decision. They also talk about the need for a promotional campaign to increase their business.

At the second meeting, Sally works diligently to encourage equal participation by everyone in the group. Within a short time, however, things are not going well. The three members who own private sta- bles are very forceful and insistent. Perhaps because these members are wealthy and highly respected among horse professionals, the rest of the group lets them do most of the talking. The tension is that the pri- vate and public stable owners see the problem quite dif- ferently. The private owners want to place full-color ads in specialized horse publications while the public own- ers are more interested in getting free publicity about their stables and in funding a few small ads in public outlets. Even though they constitute a majority, the public stable owners resent the unspoken power and influence of the other three members.

In an attempt to broaden the scope of the discussion, Sally distributes a list of questions she believes the group should talk about and answer:

• How serious is our decline in business? • Why do we have fewer customers? • How have stables in other counties responded to

the problem? • What limitations do we face in addressing this

problem (financial, lack of public relations expert- ise)?

• What should we do?

The three private stable owners jump to the last question. One of them says, “We know the answers to these questions. We need a good PR campaign. So let’s stop talking about other things and decide how to do this—as soon as possible.” Rhett, the owner of a public stable, responds quickly with, “Whoa, there. The last thing I want to do is spend a lot of money on fancy- pants ads that none of my customers will see.”

Sally interrupts and beseeches the group to slow down before deciding what to do. She tries to include everyone in the discussion by turning the meeting into a brainstorming session. Sally explains brainstorming “rules” and asks the group to think creatively about ways to increase business. If nothing else, the brain- storming session succeeds in reducing tensions between the two factions.

When you finish reading this chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions.

1 Was choosing consensus as the decision-making method appropriate for this group? Why or why not?

2 How would you word the question that the group should try to answer?

3 How well did the group select and use a structured problem-solving procedure?

4 How well did the group choose and use a creative problem-solving method?

5 How did politics, preexisting preferences, and/or power affect the group’s ability to make decisions and solve problems?

case study No More Horsing Around

237

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

238 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

In Chapter 1, we introduce the structure ↔ spontaneity dialectic by noting that structured procedures help groups balance participation, resolve conflicts, organize discussions, and empower members. They also help groups solve problems. How- ever, if a group becomes obsessed with procedures, it loses the benefits of spontane- ity and creativity. Whether “thinking outside the box” or organizing a creative problem-solving session, groups can reap enormous benefits by encouraging innova- tion and “what if” thinking. Group communication scholar Marshall Scott Poole notes:

To be effective, a group must maintain a golden mean, a balance between independent, creative thinking and structured, coordinated work. Too much independence may shat- ter group cohesion and encourage members to sacrifice group goals to their individual needs. . . . Too much structured work . . . is likely to regiment group thinking and stifle novel ideas.4

Decision-Making Methods

There are many ways to make group decisions. You can let the majority have its way, reach a decision that everyone can live with, or leave the final decision to someone else. These decision-making methods translate into voting, consensus seeking, and letting a leader or outside authority make the decision. Effective groups match the strengths of each method to the needs and purpose of the group and its task.

Decision-Making Methods

Voting � � �

Consensus Seeking � � �

Authority Rule

Voting. Voting is the easiest and most obvious way to make a group decision. No other method is more efficient and decisive. Sometimes, though, voting is not the best way to make important decisions. When a group votes, some members win, but oth- ers lose.

A majority vote requires that more than half the members vote in favor of a pro- posal. When a group makes a major decision, there may not be enough support to implement the decision if only 51 percent of the members agree on it. The 49 percent who lose may resent working on a project they dislike. Some groups use a two-thirds vote rather than majority rule. In a two-thirds vote, at least twice as many group members must vote for a proposal as vote against it. A two-thirds vote ensures that a significant number of group members support the decision.

Voting works best when:

• a group is pressed for time. • the issue is not highly controversial. • a group is too large to use any other decision-making method. • there is no other way to break a deadlock. • a group’s constitution or rules require voting on certain types of decisions.

Consensus Seeking. Because voting has built-in disadvantages, many groups rely on consensus to make decisions. A group reaches consensus when every group mem- ber agrees to support a decision or action. A consensus decision is one “that all mem- bers have a part in shaping and that all find at least minimally acceptable as a means of accomplishing some mutual goal.”5

When reached, consensus can unite and energize a group. Not only does consen- sus avoid a disruptive win/lose vote, but it also presents a united front to outsiders. Table 10.2 lists guidelines for seeking consensus.

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Group Decision Making 239

Table 10.2 Consensus Guidelines

Guidelines Strategies

Listen carefully to other members and consider their information and points of view.

• Try to be logical rather than emotional. • Don’t be stubborn and argue only for your

own position.

Don’t change your mind in order to avoid conflict or reach a quick decision.

• Don’t give in, especially if you have a crucial piece of information to share.

• Don’t agree to a decision or solution you can’t possibly support.

Avoid “easy” ways of reaching a decision. • Avoid techniques such as flipping a coin, letting the majority rule, or trading one decision for another.

If the group is deadlocked, work hard to find the next best alternative that is acceptable to everyone.

• Make sure that members not only agree but also will be committed to the final decision.

Get everyone involved in the discussion. • Engage even the quietest member, who may have key information or suggestions that can help the group make a better decision.

Welcome differences of opinion. • Remind the group that disagreement is natural and can expose the group to a wide range of information and opinions.

Consensus does not work well for all groups. Imagine how difficult it would be to achieve genuine consensus if a leader had so much power that group members were unwilling to express their honest opinions. Consensus seeking works best in groups where members have equal status or in groups that create a climate in which every- one feels comfortable expressing their views.

Authority Rule. Sometimes groups use authority rule, in which a single person or an executive group within or outside the group makes the final decision. For this method, groups gather information for and recommend decisions to another person or a larger group. For example, an association’s nominating committee may consider potential candidates and recommend a slate of officers to the association. A hiring committee may screen dozens of job applications and submit a top-three list to the person making the hiring decision.

Authority rule can have detrimental effects on a group. If a leader or an outside authority ignores or reverses group recommendations, members may become demor- alized, resentful, and nonproductive on future assignments. Even within a group, a strong leader or authority figure may use the group and its members to give the appearance of collaborative decision making. The group thus becomes a “rubber stamp” and surrenders its will to authority rule.

Decision-Making Questions

Decision-making and problem-solving groups need a clear goal. One strategy is to word the group’s goal as a question for the group to answer. A question focuses group

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Questions of Fact. A question of fact asks whether something is true or false, whether an event did or did not happen, or whether something caused this or that. Did product sales decrease last year? The answer to this question is either yes or no. A question such as “What was the decrease in sales?” requires a more detailed answer, with possible subquestions about the sales of particular products or

product sales in different regions. When a group confronts a question of fact, it must seek and scrutinize the best information available.

Questions of Conjecture. A question of conjecture asks whether something will or will not happen. Will sales increase next quarter? Will there be layoffs? Unlike a question of fact, only the future holds the answer to this type of question. Instead of focusing on what is, the group does its best to predict the future. If a group waits until the future arrives, it may be too late to make a good decision or solve a problem. Groups should seek reputable facts, expert opinions, and valid data to answer ques- tions of conjecture.6

Questions of Value. A question of value asks whether something is worthwhile: Is it good or bad; right or wrong; moral or immoral; best, average, or worst? Questions of value are difficult to discuss because the answers depend on the attitudes, beliefs, and values of group members. In many cases, the answer to a question of value may be, “It depends.” Is a community college a better place to begin higher education than

Many groups fall short of achieving their common goal because they believe the group must reach consensus on all decisions. The problem of false consensus haunts every decision-making group. False consensus occurs when members reluctantly give in to group pressures or an external authority. Rather than achieving consen- sus, the group has agreed to a decision masquerading as consensus.1

In addition, the all-or-nothing approach to consen- sus “gives each member veto power over the progress of the whole group.” In order to avoid an impasse, mem- bers may “give up and give in” or seek a flawed com- promise. When this happens, the group will fall short of success as “it mindlessly pursues 100% agreement.”2

In The Discipline of Teams, John Katzenbach and Douglas Smith observe that members who pursue com-

plete consensus often act as though disagreement and conflict are bad for the group. Nothing, they claim, could be further from the reality of effective group performance. “Without disagreement, teams rarely gen- erate the best, most creative solutions to the challenges at hand. They compromise . . . rather than developing a solution that incorporates the best of two or more opposing views. . . . The challenge for teams is to learn from disagreement and find energy in constructive con- flict, not get ruined by it.”3

1Donald G. Ellis and B. Aubrey Fisher, Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1994), p. 142. 2John R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith, The Discipline of Teams (New York: Wiley, 2001), p. 112. 3Katzenbach and Smith, p. 113.

groups in balance . . . Avoid the Hazards of Consensus

members on seeking a specific and realistic answer. Choosing a question of fact, conjecture, value, or policy can help your group clarify what members need to know and do in order to make a good decision or solve a problem.

240 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

Types of Decision-Making Questions

Questions of Fact � � �

Questions of Conjecture � � �

Questions of Value � � �

Questions of Policy

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Questions of fact, conjecture, value, and policy are not isolated inquiries. Within a group discussion, all four types of questions may arise. For example, if your fam- ily were trying to plan a summer vacation while saving money for a new car, you might start with questions of fact and conjecture: “How much do we usually spend on a summer vacation?” “How much money will we have in savings for a new car next year?” Then the dis-

cussion could move to questions of value: “How much do we value the time and place where our family vaca- tions?” “How important is it that we buy a new car this year?” Finally, you would conclude with a question of policy: “How can we both take a summer vacation and save money for a new car?” In many cases, a group must address all four types of questions to make a rational decision or solve a complex problem.

groups in balance . . . Use All Four Types of Questions

Group Decision Making 241

a prestigious university? The answer to this question depends on a student’s finances, professional goals, academic achievement record, work and family situation, and beliefs about the quality of education at each type of institution.

Questions of Policy. A question of policy asks how to address a problem. How can we improve customer service? Which candidate should we support as president of the student government association? How can we ensure that our school system maintains a culturally diverse teaching staff? Policy questions often require answers to subquestions of fact, conjecture, and value.

Decision-Making Styles

The way you make decisions may be very different from other group members. In Chapter 4, Group Diversity, we identify two Myers-Briggs traits—thinking and feeling—that focus on how we make decisions. Thinkers, for example, are task- oriented members who use logic when making decisions. Feelers are people- oriented members who want everyone to get along, even if it means compromising to avoid interpersonal problems. When thinkers and feelers work together, misun- derstandings can occur. However, when thinkers and feelers appreciate their dif- ferences as decision makers, they form an unbeatable team. Thinkers make decisions and move the group forward while feelers make sure the group is work- ing harmoniously.

In Decision Making Style, Suzanne Scott and Reginald Bruce take a detailed look at various decision-making styles.7 They describe five styles, all of which have the potential to improve or impair group decision making:

• Rational Decision Maker. “I’ve carefully considered all the issues.” Rational decision makers carefully weigh information and options before making a decision. They use logical reasoning to reach and justify their conclusions. However, they must be careful not to analyze a problem so long that they never make a decision.

• Intuitive Decision Maker. “It just feels like the right thing to do.” Intuitive decision makers make decisions based on instincts and feelings. They may not always be able to articulate specific reasons for decisions but know that their decisions “feel” right.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

• Dependent Decision Maker. “If you think it’s okay, then I’ll do it.” Depen- dent decision makers seek the advice and opinions of others before making a decision. They feel uncomfortable making decisions that others may disap- prove of or oppose. They may even make a decision they aren’t happy with just to please others.

• Avoidant Decision Maker. “I just can’t deal with this right now.” Avoidant decision makers feel uncomfortable making decisions. As a result, they may not think about a problem at all or will make a final decision at the very last minute.

• Spontaneous Decision Maker. “Let’s do it now and worry about the conse- quences later.” Spontaneous decision makers are impulsive and make quick decisions on the spur of the moment. They often make decisions they later regret.

Consider the ways in which different decision-making styles could impair group decision making. For example, what would happen if half of the group were rational decision makers and the other half were intuitive decision makers? Also, consider the potential pitfalls of having only one type of decision-making style in a group, such as dependent or avoidant decision makers. Differences in decision-making styles require the same understanding, respect, and adaptation appropriate for other types of member diversity.

Structured Problem Solving Group communication scholar Marshall Scott Poole identifies structured procedures as “the heart of group work [and] the most powerful tools we have” for improving the quality of group work.8 Even a simple procedure such as constructing and follow- ing a short agenda enhances meeting productivity. Time and effort spent on develop- ing and using a well-planned, structured procedure can reap the following benefits:

• Balanced participation. Procedures can minimize the impact of powerful leaders or members by making it difficult for them to dominate a group’s discussion.

• Conflict resolution. Procedures often incorporate guidelines for managing con- flict, resolving disagreements, and building genuine consensus.

• Organization. Procedures require members to follow a clear organizational pattern and focus on the same thing at the same time. Procedures also ensure that group members do not skip or ignore major discussion items.

• Group empowerment. Procedures provide a sense of control. “This happens when members know they have followed a procedure well, managed conflict successfully, given all members an equal opportunity to participate, and as a result have made a good decision.”9

There is no “best” structured procedure to ensure effective problem solving in groups. As a group gains experience and successfully solves problems, members learn that some methods work better than others and some need modification to suit the group’s needs. In this chapter, we present three well-established methods: the Standard Agenda, the Functional Perspective, and the Single Question Format (see Figure 10.1).

To appreciate the similarities and differences among these procedures, let’s follow a hypothetical example that illustrates how the various steps apply to group problem solving.

242 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

SINGLE QUESTION FORMAT

Problem-Solving Procedures

STANDARD AGENDA

Reflective Thinking Procedures

Communication Behavior Procedures

Question/Answer Procedures

Figure 10.1 Structured Problem-Solving Procedures

Structured Problem Solving 243

Fallingstar State College

For three consecutive years, Fallingstar State College has experienced declining enroll- ment and no increase in funding from the state. In order to balance the budget, the col- lege has had to raise tuition every year. There are no prospects for more state funding in the near future. Even with significant tuition increases, overall college revenue is down. The college’s planning council, composed of representative vice presidents, deans, faculty members, staff employees, and students, has been charged with answer- ing the following question: Given the severe budget constraints and declining enroll- ment, how can the college preserve high-quality instruction and student services?

Although the Fallingstar example does not offer many details, it can help demon- strate the ways in which a group may use several of the most common structured procedures to solve problems.

The Standard Agenda

The founding father of problem-solving procedures is John Dewey, a U.S. philoso- pher and educator. In 1910, Dewey wrote How We Think, in which he described a set of practical steps that a rational person should follow when solving a problem.10

These guidelines are known as the Reflective Thinking Process. Dewey’s approach begins with a focus on understanding the problem and then moves on to a system- atic consideration of possible solutions. The Standard Agenda incorporates the major steps in Dewey’s process11 (see Figure 10.2).

Task Clarification. During this initial phase, a group makes sure that everyone understands the task or assignment. For example, Fallingstar State College’s plan- ning council could dedicate the beginning of its first meeting to reviewing the coun- cil’s goal and deadlines as well as the need to produce written recommendations. During this phase, group members ask questions about their roles and responsibili- ties in the problem-solving process.

Problem Identification. Overlooking this second step can send a group in the wrong direction. In the case of Fallingstar State College, there may be several differ- ent ways to define the college’s problem. Is the problem declining enrollment? Some group members may consider this an advantage rather than a disadvantage because having fewer students can result in smaller classes, more individualized instruction,

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

1. Task Clarification

2. Problem Identification

3. Fact Finding

4. Solution Criteria

5. Solution Suggestions

6. Solution Evaluation and Selection

7. Solution Implementation

Figure 10.2 The Standard Agenda

less chaos at registration, and easier parking. Is the problem a lack of money? Although lack of money seems to be a universal problem, an inefficiently run college could find that it in fact has enough money if it enhances productivity and becomes more businesslike.

The group should word the problem as an agreed-upon question. Whether this is a question of fact, conjecture, value, or policy determines the focus and direction of the discussion. The question, “Given the severe budget constraints and declining enroll- ment, how can the college preserve high-quality instruction and student services?” is a question of policy that also requires answering questions of fact, value, and conjecture.

Fact Finding. During the fact-finding step, group members have several obliga- tions reflected in the following questions of fact and value: What are the facts of the situation? What additional information or expert opinions do we need? How serious or widespread is the problem? What are the causes of the problem? What prevents us from solving the problem? These questions require investigations of facts, conclu- sions about causes and effects, and value judgments about the seriousness of the problem.

Fallingstar State College’s planning council could look at the rate of enrollment decline and future enrollment projections, the anticipated budgets for future years, the efficiency of existing services, the projected impact of inflation, estimated salary increases, predictable maintenance costs, and the likely causes of declining enroll- ment. It could take months to investigate these questions, and even then, there may not be clear answers to all of them. Failure to search for such answers, however, is much more hazardous than not trying to find them.

244 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

We offer a word of caution about the fact-finding phase recommended in most problem-solving procedures. Sometimes, highly conscientious groups become immo- bilized by analysis paralysis, a fixation on seeking more information, more analysis, and more meetings without significant results. Psychologist Edward De Bono put it this way: “The usual approach to problem solving is to identify and remove the cause of the prob- lem. Sometimes this is not possible because the cause cannot be found, because there are too many causes, or because the cause is human nature and cannot be removed. In such cases we are usually paralyzed.”1

In the case of Fallingstar State College, the planning council could collect dozens of reports and identify ten possible causes of declining enrollment but still be unable to verify or settle on the most important rea- sons. Rather than spending months arguing about the issue or giving up on finding the correct answer, a group may have to move on and begin its search for solutions.

1Edward De Bono, New Thinking for the New Millennium (New York: Viking, 1999), quoted in Darrell Mann, “Analysis Paralysis: When Root Cause Analysis Isn’t the Way,” The TRIZ-Journal, 2006, www.triz-journal.com. Retrieved April 21, 2008.

groups in balance . . . Avoid Analysis Paralysis

Structured Problem Solving 245

Solution Criteria. Solution criteria are standards a group establishes for its solu- tion to meet. In a review of group procedures, Susan Jarboe describes solution crite- ria as member ideas about what a solution should accomplish.12 For example, the Fallingstar planning council recognizes the need for an affordable method for both increasing enrollment and preserving high-quality instruction and student services. Here are some general criteria to consider:

• Will the solution work—is it reasonable and realistic? • Do we have the resources (money, equipment, personnel) to implement the

solution? • Do we have enough time to implement the solution? • Does the solution reflect and protect our values?13

Criteria should reflect a realistic understanding of solution limitations, which may include financial, political, and legal restrictions. For the college planning council, criteria could include affordability, acceptance of the solution by all subgroups (administrators, faculty, staff, and students), a commitment to using fair and open procedures to assess existing programs, and considerations of the political and legal consequences of proposed actions.

Solution Suggestions. At this point in a group’s deliberations, some solutions may be obvious. Even so, the group should concentrate on suggesting as many solutions as possible. Having spent time understanding the task, identifying the problem, ana- lyzing its consequences and causes, and establishing solution criteria, members should be able to offer numerous solutions. Later in this chapter, we describe a tech- nique called brainstorming that can help a group generate creative options.

Suggestions from the college’s planning council could include a wide range of options: raise tuition, embark on a new promotional campaign, seek additional grants and corporate donations, freeze raises and promotions, require additional teaching by faculty, increase class size, reduce the number of administrators and staff, eliminate expensive programs and services, lobby the state for more funds, and charge stu- dents fees for special services. This list could double or triple, depending on the cre- ativity and resourcefulness of the group.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Your textbook describes three structured procedures to solve problems (the Standard Agenda, the Functional Perspective, and the Single Question Format). Which procedure would you recommend to this group as it makes critical decisions about what to include in the next edition of the school newspaper?

Solution Evaluation and Selection. This stage of the Standard Agenda may be the most difficult and controversial. Here, group members discuss the pros and cons of each suggestion in light of their agreed-upon solution criteria. Questions of conjec- ture arise as the group considers the possible consequences of each option. Discussion may become heated, and disagreements may grow fierce. In some groups, members may be so tired or frustrated by the time they get to this phase that they have a ten- dency to jump to conclusions. If group members have been conscientious in analyz- ing the problem and establishing criteria for solutions, however, they will reject some solutions quickly, while others will swiftly rise to the top of the list.

The college’s planning council may hear students argue against increased tuition, whereas faculty members predict a decline in instructional quality if they are required to teach more or larger classes. Administrators and staff may cringe at freezing salaries, whereas faculty may support reductions in administrative staff. In this phase, a group should remember its solution criteria and use them to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each suggested solution. At the end of this stage, a group selects one or more solutions.

Solution Implementation. Having made a difficult decision, a group faces one more challenge: How should we implement our solution? Is our group responsible for implementation or do we delegate implementation to someone else? For all the time a group spends trying to solve a problem, it may take even more time to organize and implement the solution. If the planning council wants a new promotional cam- paign to attract students, the campaign must be well planned and affordable to achieve its goal. If the college wants to enhance fund-raising efforts, a group or office must have the authority and resources to seek such funds. Brilliant solutions can fail if no one takes responsibility or has the authority to implement them.

246 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

In Chapter 5, Group Leadership, we describe functional theory as a group of theories that try “to understand the factors and processes that help and hurt the quality of group performance.”1 In addition to looking at how factors such as leadership, group size, and conflict man- agement affect group productivity, functional theory also examines how communication affects group deci- sion making and problem solving. Functional theorists ask: Why do some groups make better decisions than others?

Group communication scholars Dennis Gouran and Randy Hirokawa identified a set of “critical functions” that explain and predict how well a group will make decisions and solve problems.2 Their Functional Per- spective claims that “communication is the instrument by which members or groups, with varying degrees of success, reach decisions and generate solutions to prob- lems.”3 Effective communication, they contend, is more important than the order in which groups perform these functions. If, however, groups stray too far from an agenda, the quality of the group’s decision may suffer.

As was the case with the Standard Agenda, the origin of the Functional Perspective is John Dewey’s Reflective Thinking Process. A second major source is

sociologist Robert Bales’s study of problem-solving groups. Bales claimed that groups strive for equilibrium (or a balance) in satisfying the demands of both task and social dimensions that enable members to perform as a unit.4

1Andrea B. Hollingshead, et al., “A Look at Groups from the Func- tional Perspective” in Theories of Small Groups: Interdisciplinary Per- spectives, ed. Marshall Scott Poole and Andrea B. Hollingshead (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005), p. 22. 2Dennis S. Gouran and Randy Hirokawa, “The Role of Communica- tion in Decision-Making Groups: A Functional Perspective,” in Communications in Transition: Issues and Debate in Current Research, ed. Mary S. Mander (New York: Praeger, 1983), pp. 168–185; Dennis S. Gouran and Randy Hirokawa, “Functional Theory and Communica- tion in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Groups; An Expanded View,” in Communication and Group Decision Making, 2nd ed., ed. Randy Y. Hirokawa and Marshall Scott Poole (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), pp. 55–80. 3See Randy Y. Hirokawa and Roger Pace, “A Descriptive Investiga- tion of the Possible Communication-Based Reasons for Effective and Ineffective Group Decision Making,” Communication Monographs, 50 (1983), pp. 363–79; Randy Y. Hirokawa and Dirk Scheerhorn, “Com- munication and Faulty Group Decision-Making,” in Communication and Group Decision-Making, ed. Randy Y. Hirokawa and Marshall Scott Poole (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986), pp. 63–80; Gouran and Hirokawa, “Functional Theory and Communication in Decision- Making and Problem-Solving Groups.” 4Gouran and Hirokawa, “Functional Theory and Communication in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Groups,” p. 28.

theory in groups The Function of the Functional Perspective

Structured Problem Solving 247

The Functional Perspective

The Functional Perspective and the Standard Agenda have a great deal in common. Both focus on the importance of understanding a problem and its related issues as well as developing effective solution criteria as a basis for solving the problem. The Functional Perspective, however, has three unique qualities that distinguish it from the Standard Agenda model. By focusing on preparation, competence, and commu- nication functions, a group enhances its ability to make sound decisions when seek- ing the best solution to a problem.

The Preparation Function. The Functional Perspective includes a unique prepa- ration function that should occur before a group begins the problem-solving process. According to Dennis Gouran and Randy Hirokawa, certain conditions must exist for a group to make good decisions and to select appropriate solutions for problems. Before a group engages in specific problem-solving tasks, members should prepare for the process by:

• agreeing to make the best possible decision. • identifying the resources necessary for making such a decision.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Understand the Issues

Determine Solution Criteria

Identify Possible Solutions

Analyze the Pros and Cons of Possible Solutions

Select the Best Option

Figure 10.3 Functional Task Requirements

• recognizing possible obstacles to decision making and problem solving. • specifying the procedures and ground rules the group will follow.14

These prerequisites ensure that the group is ready, willing, and able to tackle the issue. The first task—agreeing to make the best possible decision—is not sufficient to ensure success. Group members also must make sure that they have identified the sources of information they will need, the limits or constraints on their ability to make a decision, and the appropriate decision-making or problem-solving procedure. Hirokawa emphasizes that “the ability of a group to gather and retain a wide range of information is the single most important determinant of high-quality decision making.”15

The Competence Function. The Functional Perspective emphasizes that the com- petent performance of each function is more important than the Standard Agenda’s focus on following problem-solving steps in a specific order. When members are pre- pared to tackle an issue, the group should address five fundamental task require- ments that constitute the heart of functional theory. Rather than completing each step in order, the group makes sure that each step is completed competently, regardless of the order. Figure 10.3 depicts the functional task requirements with two-way arrows that show a more flexible approach to addressing each function.

1. Understand the Issues. This function combines the second and third steps in the Standard Agenda—problem identification and fact finding. Functional competence ensures that the group accurately defines the problem and iden- tifies the real causes of the problem. For example, if the Fallingstar planning council mistakenly decides that the decrease in enrollment is caused by higher tuition, it may be ignoring other factors such as competition from other colleges, the state of the economy and its effect on students’ ability to find jobs, or even a public perception that the college does not offer high- quality instruction.

248 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Structured Problem Solving 249

2. Determine Solution Criteria. This function is similar to the solution criteria step in the Standard Agenda. Functional competence ensures that this process is both open and guided by the group’s clear and elevated goal. For example, if everyone on the Fallingstar planning council agrees that employee sacrifices are inevitable, they have cleared the road for a wider range of possible actions.

3. Identify Possible Solutions. Similar to the solution suggestions step in the Stan- dard Agenda, functional competence ensures that the group uses its rational and rigorous standards to produce a wider range of solutions.

4. Analyze the Pros and Cons of Possible Solutions. The fourth function is the group’s ability to analyze and discuss the positive and negative features of suggested solutions. Functional competence avoids breakdowns at this stage in the problem-solving process because group members go beyond the more obvious positive and negative attributes of certain attractive choices. As a result, the group has confidence in its assessment of each solution’s strengths and weaknesses.

5. Select the Best Option. Although there may be several good options at this point, functional competence enhances group confidence that its choice reflects a comprehensive understanding and analysis of the issues and solu- tions based on clear solution criteria.

The Communication Function. The Functional Perspective emphasizes members’ critical thinking and communication skills as prerequisites for understanding and discussing the pros and the cons of each solution. Among the many communication functions essential to effective problem solving, four functions stand out as critical to group success:

1. Members are well-prepared, skilled, critical thinkers and effective communi- cators who know how to generate strong arguments and analyze the valid- ity of arguments made by other members.

2. Members establish and use agreed-upon criteria to evaluate possible solu- tions and, as a result, have a better basis for selecting the best solution.

3. Members base their arguments on valid facts and justified inferences, ana- lyze and (if necessary) refute arguments made by other group members, and as a result, increase the group’s chances of generating and selecting the best solution.

4. Members with leadership skills foster a supportive communication environ- ment and push the group toward making a high-quality decision.16

The Single Question Format

The Single Question Format is a seemingly simple problem-solving procedure that approximates the way successful problem solvers and decision makers naturally think.17 Its five steps, shown in Figure 10.4, provide a sharp focus on an agreed-upon question that, if thoroughly analyzed and responsibly answered, should provide the solution to a problem.18

Identify the Problem. What is the single question, the answer to which is all that the group needs to know in order to accomplish its agreed-upon goal? Although reaching agreement on the single question may take many hours, the investment is essential.19 For example, Fallingstar State College’s planning council decides to address this question: How can we increase enrollment and preserve high-quality

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

1. Identify the Problem

2. Create a Collaborative Setting

3. Analyze the Issues

4. Identify Possible Solutions

5. Answer the Single Question

Figure 10.4 The Single Question Format

instruction and student services? In a business setting, a single question might be: How should we eliminate $4 million of annual expenses without damaging the com- pany or its customer relationships? At home, you could ask: Given limited funds, how can we take a vacation and purchase another car?

Create a Collaborative Setting. This second step is absent from most other problem-solving procedures. Here, you ask your group to agree on a set of norms by generating a list of “we will” statements designed to foster open discussion and par- ticipation. For example:

• We will listen to all points of view. • We will ask for facts as well as opinions. • We will be tough on issues but not on one another. • We will put aside personal agendas.

In addition to the “we will” list, identify assumptions and biases that may influ- ence the discussion. Ask the group: Have past approaches worked, or do we need a new approach? Do we really understand the problem, or do we need to take a fresh look at the situation? Are we ignoring some approaches because of personal or polit- ical biases?

In the case of the Fallingstar planning council, members may decide not to use the names of specific administrators when describing failed programs. Rather than assuming that the college recruitment office “ain’t broke, so why fix it?” they may decide that there is room for improvement in all offices. When a group such as the Fallingstar planning council examines volatile issues such as tuition increases, staff reductions, and increased workloads, members will understandably want to protect their personal interests. If the group fails to create a collaborative setting for such dis- cussion, the process could deteriorate into destructive conflict and flawed decision making.

Analyze the Issues. The third step requires a group to identify and analyze relevant subquestions such as these:

250 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Possible Solution Advantages Disadvantages

Raising tuition 1. Increases college resources.

1. Spurs protests by angry students.

2. Creates the perception of quality—you get what you pay for.

2. Causes students to leave for less expensive colleges.

3. Provides additional funds for scholarships to financially needy students.

3. Leads to erroneous beliefs that the college can now fund expensive new projects.

Structured Problem Solving 251

• What issues should we address in order to answer our single question? • Do we have accurate and relevant facts about each issue? • Given what we know, what is the best or most reasonable response to each

issue?

Completing this step helps a group “avoid arriving at a solution too early, before understanding the critical components of the problem.”20 This step is similar to the second and third steps in the Standard Agenda (problem identification and fact find- ing) and “understand the issue” in the Functional Perspective.

Analyzing issues differs by focusing on critical thinking rather describing. Fallingstar council members must do more than share facts about the rate of enroll- ment decline and future enrollment projections or anticipated budgets. They must determine whether the facts and suggested causes are valid.

Identify Possible Solutions. This step asks a group to suggest two or three rea- sonable solutions to the overall single question and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each solution, much like similar steps in the Standard Agenda and Functional Perspective. This is a crucial step in which strong opinions and disagree- ments may arise. By listing advantages and disadvantages, however, a group may be able to see that the advantages for one solution far outweigh the disadvantages.

A Fallingstar vice president might suggest efficiency moves such as increasing class size as well as a more aggressive marketing plan. A student might recommend an organized protest at the state capitol in support of more funding. In the Single Question Format, the group would consider the advantages and disadvantages of every reasonable solution and determine the extent to which each suggestion could or should be part of an ideal solution that answers its single question. A simple table helps group members generate the pros and cons for each option.

Answer the Single Question. After analyzing the pros and cons of each potential solution, the group selects “the best solution to the problem based on a clear, shared understanding of all the relevant issues. This clarity, in turn, allows a group to pro- ceed with sufficient confidence to their final decision and commit to it.”21

Although the Single Question Format shares many characteristics with the Stan- dard Agenda and Functional Perspective, two features make it both different and highly effective. First, it sharply focuses on goal clarity (a prerequisite for any work group) and issue analysis. Second, it cultivates a supportive group climate that helps members identify, raise, and resolve many interpersonal and procedural problems that can affect group success.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

252 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

Table 10.3 Summary of Structured Problem-Solving Procedures

Standard Agenda Functional Perspective Single Question Format

1. Task Clarification 2. Problem Identification 3. Fact Finding 4. Solution Criteria 5. Solution Suggestions 6. Solution Evaluation and Selection 7. Solution Implementation

• Understand the Issues • Determine Solution Criteria • Identify Possible Solutions • Analyze the Pros and Cons of

Possible Solutions • Select the Best Option

1. Identify the Problem as a Single Question

2. Create a Collaborative Setting a. Agree on Discussion Norms b. Identify Assumptions and Biases

3. Identify and Analyze the Issues 4. Identify Possible Solutions 5. Answer the Single Question

Table 10.3 summarizes the main features of the three structured problem-solving procedures discussed in this chapter.

Creative Problem Solving Curiosity and creativity fuel all great groups. These qualities allow groups to “iden- tify significant problems and find creative, boundary-bursting solutions rather than simplistic ones.”22 Effective group leaders understand the near-magical quality that creativity can inject into the group process. When, for example, Walt Disney “asked his artists to push the envelope of animation, he told them ‘If you can dream it, you can do it.’ He believed that, and, as a result, they did too.”23

Creativity has two components: (1) the nonjudgmental process of searching for, separating, and connecting unrelated ideas and elements and (2) combining these elements into new ideas.24

Encouraging and rewarding creativity can be as important to problem solving as following any of the structured procedures described in this chapter. For example, one of us once chaired a meeting in which the injection of creativity broke through a problem-solving logjam:

I was chairing a meeting of graphic artists, copywriters, and public relations staff mem- bers at the college. Our assignment was to write and design a commemorative booklet for the college’s fortieth anniversary. On the conference table sat a dozen such booklets from other colleges. The group had reviewed all the samples and come up with a list of common features. The problem was this: We had limited funds to print the booklet, so we had to confine ourselves to twenty-four pages. Very quickly, the process bogged down. An uncomfortable silence settled over the group. At this point, I asked, “If you hadn’t seen any of these model booklets, what would you write and design to com- memorate our anniversary?” The response was immediate and energizing: “You mean we can come up with something new and different?” The answer was yes. The result: A new sense of excitement and eagerness permeated the group. The “model” booklets were swept off the table. Highly creative, out-of-the-box alternatives materialized.

When groups engage in creative problem solving, members share new connec- tions and unusual possibilities. Although it is impossible to describe the creative process in precise terms (it wouldn’t be all that creative if we could), we can outline the basic stages of the process in groups. Usually, there are four stages:

• Investigation. Group members gather information and attempt to understand the nature and causes of a problem.

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Creative Problem Solving 253

Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for Reaching a Decision

Brainstorming for Generating Ideas

Decreasing Options Technique (DOT) for Refining Ideas

Creative Problem-Solving Methods

Figure 10.5 Creative Problem-Solving Methods

• Imagination. Group members engage in free thinking by removing procedural and mental roadblocks. The group generates and discusses new and unusual ideas.

• Incubation. The group allows a period of time in which imaginative ideas can percolate and recombine in new ways. During this stage, the group may take a break or focus on another topic or issue.

• Insight. The “Aha!” moment occurs and a new approach or solution emerges. Group members recognize the breakthrough moment and may build upon or improve the idea.

For group members with strong control needs, creative problem solving may seem to divert energy from dealing with the problem. Despite these concerns, creative thinking in groups is well worth the effort and the laughter. Group members trained in creative problem solving participate more, criticize one another less, support new ideas more, exhibit humor, and produce ideas that are more worthwhile.25 John Kao, the academic director of the Managing Innovations program at Stanford University, compares balancing creativity and structured group process to tending the flames of a fire. “The spark needs air, breathing room, and freedom to ignite. But let the air blow too freely, and the spark will go out. Close all the doors and windows, and you will stifle it.”26

As is the case with structured problem solving, there are many creative problem- solving methods. Again, there is no “best” technique. Fortunately, there are effective procedures for making decision making and problem solving more effective by har- nessing group ingenuity and creativity (see Figure 10.5).

Brainstorming

In 1953, Alex Osborn introduced the concept of brainstorming in his book Applied Imagination.27 Brainstorming is a technique for generating as many ideas as possible in a short period of time. When a group wants to identify the causes of or solutions to a problem, brainstorming can increase the number and creativity of responses. Brainstorming is fairly simple and widely used. In fact, more than 70 percent of busi- nesspeople use brainstorming in their organizations.28 Unfortunately, many groups do not use brainstorming effectively.

Brainstorming is based on two key principles: (1) deferring judgment improves the quality of input, and (2) the quantity of ideas and output breeds quality. The idea that quantity breeds quality comes from the notion that the first ideas we come up with are usually the most obvious, and that truly creative ideas will come only after

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

254 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

1. Sharpen the Focus • Start with a clear statement of the problem. • Give members a few minutes to think about possible ideas before

brainstorming begins.

2. For All to See • Assign someone to write down the group’s ideas. • Post the ideas where everyone can see them.

3. Number the Ideas • Numbering can motivate a group, e.g., “Let’s try to get 100 ideas.” • Numbering makes it easier to jump back and forth among ideas.

4. Encourage Creativity • Wild and crazy ideas are welcome. • Quantity is more important than quality.

5. All Input, No Putdown • Don’t analyze, oppose, or praise another member’s ideas. • Don’t discuss, defend, clarify, or comment on your own suggestions. • Keep the ideas coming. • Ideas are evaluated only after brainstorming is over.

6. Build and Jump • Build on or modify ideas offered by others. • Combine two or more ideas into a new idea. • It’s okay to jump back to an earlier idea or forward to a completely different

line of thinking.

Figure 10.6 Brainstorming Guidelines

we have gotten the obvious suggestions out.29 The guidelines in Figure 10.6 explain the nature and rules of brainstorming.

However, brainstorming may be counterproductive under certain circumstances.30

For example, the comments of a powerful member or “the boss” may influence and limit the direction of ideas. In an effort to be more democratic, some groups have members speak in turn. But this approach prevents the group from building momen- tum and results in fewer ideas. Finally, some members try to write down all the group’s ideas. Those members end up being so focused on note taking that they rarely contribute ideas. Instead, one person should record and post all the ideas contributed by the group members.

Although brainstorming is popular, its effectiveness depends on the nature of the group and its members. If a group is self-conscious and sensitive to implied criticism, brainstorming can fail. If a group is comfortable with such a freewheeling process, brainstorming can enhance creativity and produce many worthwhile ideas.

Nominal Group Technique (NGT)

Andre L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Van de Ven developed the Nominal Group Tech- nique, also known as NGT, as a way of maximizing participation in problem-solving and program-planning groups while minimizing some of the interpersonal problems associated with group interaction.31 The term nominal means “existing in name only.” Thus, a nominal group is a collection of people who, at first, work individually rather

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Creative Problem Solving 255

Brainstorming is based on two key principles: (1) deferring judgment improves the quality of input, and (2) the quantity of ideas and output breeds quality. How does this photograph illustrate a group’s use of these principles?

than collectively. NGT combines aspects of silent voting with limited discussion to help a group build consensus and arrive at a decision.32

There are two separate phases in a Nominal Group Technique session: an idea gen- eration phase and an evaluation/voting phase. During the idea generation phase, seven to ten individuals sit around a table in full view of one another.

Phase 1: Idea Generation

1. Each member writes his or her ideas on a piece of paper. 2. At the end of five to ten minutes, a structured sharing of ideas takes place.

Each member, in turn, presents one idea from his or her private list. 3. A recorder writes the ideas on a flip chart (or posts ideas using computer

projections) in full view of other members. There is no discussion at this point—only the recording of members’ ideas.

4. Round-robin listing continues until all members have no further ideas to share.33

Returning to the case of the college planning council, members could use the Nom- inal Group Technique to generate a list of possible causes of declining enrollment or a list of possible solutions. The listing of ideas in an NGT session is different from brainstorming because members work alone to generate ideas.

During the second, evaluative phase of a Nominal Group Technique session, the group discusses each recorded idea and then votes to create a rank order of items.

Phase 2: Idea Evaluation and Voting

1. Members discuss each idea before independent voting. 2. Members may clarify or state their support or nonsupport for each listed item. 3. Members vote by ranking or rating ideas privately, in writing. 4. The group decision is the mathematically pooled outcome of the individual

votes.34

Nominal Group Technique works particularly well when individual judgments and expertise are valued. Groups use NGT to rank job applicants, to determine which of many possible solutions receives the most support, to establish budget priorities,

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Several researchers investigating the relative usefulness of brainstorming and Nominal Group Technique con- clude that Nominal Group Technique often works bet- ter than brainstorming for generating ideas that are both numerous and creative. There are several possible reasons for this conclusion.1

• Waiting for a turn to speak in a brainstorming group (rather than writing down ideas in advance) may disrupt the thinking of group members and slow the production of ideas.

• Group members who fear negative evaluation from others may withhold good ideas even though the brainstorming group has been told to defer judgment.

• Some members may loaf or “free ride” and let oth- ers do all the thinking and talking.

• Members who make more contributions to a brain- storming session often earn higher status, which may discourage others from speaking.

Nominal Group Technique avoids most of these problems because members have time to think and write during the idea-generating process. Brainstorm- ing can avoid these problems when group members use networked computers programmed with groupware to generate a master list of ideas simultaneously and anonymously.2

1Craig E. Johnson and Michael Z. Hackman, Creative Communication: Principles and Applications (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1995), pp. 129–30. 2Johnson and Hackman., p. 131.

256 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

groups in balance . . . Select Brainstorming or Nominal Group Technique Wisely

and to reach consensus on the causes of a problem. The highly structured NGT process guarantees equal participation during the idea generation phase and pro- vides opportunities for discussion and critical evaluation in the second phase. NGT can also be useful when dealing with a sensitive or controversial topic on which con- trary opinions or a myriad of details could paralyze the discussion.35

An NGT session requires a great deal of time and a skilled moderator to make it work efficiently and effectively. Given NGT’s highly structured format, it is difficult to adjust or modify suggested items, and this may frustrate group members who pre- fer spontaneous interaction. At the same time, NGT can curb members who dominate or block the ideas and comments of others.

Decreasing Options Technique (DOT)

The Decreasing Options Technique (DOT) is a decision-making tool that helps groups reduce and refine a large number of sugges- tions into a manageable number of ideas. As professional facilita- tors, we have used this technique to assist small and large groups facing a variety of decision-making tasks. We have enlisted the DOT strategy to write an identity statement for an academic discipline, to create an ethics credo for a professional association, to draft a vision statement for a college, and to create an academic curriculum for an emerging profession. The DOT method works best when a group must process a multitude of ideas and options.

Decreasing Options Technique (DOT) Steps

Generate Ideas � � �

Post the Ideas � � �

Sort the Ideas � � �

Dot the Ideas

• Generate Ideas. On an individual basis, group members generate and record ideas related to the topic under discussion. Ideas can be single words or full- sentence suggestions. For example, when creating an ethics credo at a National Communication Association conference, participants contributed

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Creative Problem Solving 257

words such as honesty, respect, and truth for inclusion.36 You can ask group members to generate and submit ideas before the group meets or ask them to contribute their ideas during a meeting. Each idea should be written on a sep- arate sheet of paper in large, easy-to-read letters—only one idea per page.

• Post the Ideas. Post the separate sheets of paper on the walls of the group’s meeting room. If members submit their ideas in advance, you can post the pages before the meeting begins. When members generate ideas during a meeting, post the results only after all members have finished writing their ideas.

• Sort the Ideas. Not surprisingly, many group members will contribute similar or overlapping ideas. When this happens, sort the ideas and post similar ideas close to one another. For example, when facilitating the development of a college’s vision statement, phrases like academic excellence, quality education, and high-quality instruction were posted near one another. Once everyone is comfortable with the sorted ideas, give a title to each grouping. For example, in the vision statement session, the term quality education was used as an umbrella phrase for nearly a dozen similar concepts.

• Dot the Ideas. At this point, members face the difficult task of deciding which ideas are most important: Which concepts must be included in our associa- tion’s ethics credo? Which units are essential in the new curriculum? Which actions will increase enrollment at Fallingstar State College? The final step requires all participants to “dot” their preferred ideas. Give every member a limited number of colored sticker dots. For example, after giving ten dots to each member of the vision statement group, we instructed them to choose the most important concepts from among the twenty-five phrases posted on the walls. After everyone has finished walking around the room and posting dots, the most important ideas are usually very apparent. Some ideas will be covered with dots; others will be speckled with only three or four; some will remain blank. After a brief review of the outcome, the group can eliminate

The group decision-making and problem-solving meth- ods in this chapter were originally designed for face-to- face meetings. These methods also work well in virtual groups. Additionally, specialized computer software, or groupware, can facilitate group collaboration, deci- sion making, and problem solving.

Researchers suggest that different types of technol- ogy are not equally well suited to all types of group interaction.1 For example, if your group is engaged in brainstorming, using groupware that incorporates audio, video, and text will be more effective than using email. If a virtual group has to make a decision, a video- conference will be more useful than an electronic bul- letin board. Group experts John Katzenbach and Douglas Smith remind us that “whenever teams gather

through groupware to advance, they need to recognize and adjust to key differences between face-to-face and groupware interactions.”2 They also caution against approaching every virtual meeting in the same way. Group problem-solving and decision-making tasks require more opportunity for interaction than, for instance, information sharing or presentations. A vir- tual group should select the technology that is best suited to its problem-solving method.

1Deborah L. Duarte and Nancy Tennant Snyder, Mastering Virtual Teams, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), p. 168. 2John R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith, The Discipline of Teams: A Mindbook-Workbook for Delivering Small Group Performance (New York: Wiley, 2001), p. 167.

virtual groups Adapting Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Methods

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

258 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

Inertia We’ve done it before.

Instruction Someone showed us how to do it.

Imitation We’ve seen how it’s done.

Innovation We have developed a new way to do it.

some ideas, decide whether marginal ideas should be included, and end up with a limited and manageable number of options to consider and discuss.

When a group generates dozens of ideas, members use valuable meeting time to discuss each idea, regardless of its merit or relevance. The DOT method reduces the quantity of ideas to a manageable number. Often DOT is a preface to an extended discussion of key ideas and suggestions. Consider using DOT when

• The group is so large that open discussion of individual ideas is unworkable or too time consuming.

• The group has generated a significant number of competing ideas. • The group wants to ensure equal opportunities for input by all members. • The group wants to restrain dominant members from exerting too much

influence. • The group does not have enough time to discuss multiple or controversial

ideas.

Although the examples we have used to describe the DOT process focus on face- to-face interaction, DOT also works very well in virtual settings. Instead of writing ideas on sheets of paper, posting them on walls, and dotting preferences, a virtual group can follow the same steps by using networked software designed for interac- tive group work.

Enhancing Group Creativity

Given the benefits of creative problem solving, we recommend four strategies for enhancing group creativity, regardless of the chosen method: (1) control judgment, (2) encourage innovation, (3) ask “what if,” and (4) use metaphors.

Control Judgment. Almost nothing inhibits group creativity as much as negative responses to new ideas and innovative solutions. “That won’t work.” “We’ve tried that.” “That’s bizarre.” Sometimes a bizarre idea can evolve into a creative solution. “Keeping the process open and avoiding premature closure are crucially important. Because creative work is exploratory in nature, it deserves suspension of belief in the early stages.”37

Encourage Innovation. In his book on creativity in the workplace, Lee Towe pre- sents four sources of action that guide us through how we solve problems.38

These sources of action also apply to group problem solving. Remember the group trying to design the commemorative booklet for the college’s anniversary? Until their creativity was released, they were bogged down in inertia, instruction, and imitation. Encouraging group members to be innovative and imaginative sparked the group’s creative powers.

Ask “What If.” Group members are often reluctant to think creatively because they have preconceived notions about what to do. Asking “what if” can set aside these

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Problem-Solving Realities 259

constraints. John Kao suggests that there are two types of knowledge. The first is raw knowledge—facts, information, and data. The second type of knowledge is insight, or the “Aha!” It is “a response to the what ifs and if only we coulds.”39

Here are some questions that the commemorative booklet committee could have asked: What if we had a million dollars to design and print the commemorative book- let; what would we do? What if we had one hundred pages to work with? What if we could hire a famous author to write the copy—what would the booklet say? Group members could consider one more “what if” scenario: What if we do nothing?40 In other words, what are the consequences, if any, if we don’t produce a commemora- tive booklet?

Use Metaphors. The answers to many problems already exist. It’s just that they are hiding in other areas of our lives.41 You can find these hiding places in common metaphors. Metaphors can help group members explain, understand, guide, and direct their creative thinking in ways they would not have thought of otherwise.42

For example, the metaphor of an emergency room could help redesign the registra- tion process at some colleges. Students who don’t need help can register online or over the telephone. Those who need help meet a kind of “triage nurse,” a college advisor who can answer simple questions, direct them to a clerk for processing, or send them to a private room where they can receive “intensive care” from a “special- ist” counselor. The beauty of metaphors is that they force group members to look at a problem in new and creative ways.

Problem-Solving Realities Although procedures give us powerful problem-solving tools, several other factors affect the outcome of group decisions and solutions. We would be remiss if we did not

In Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration, Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman warn that “Creative collaboration is so powerful a phenomenon that it inevitably raises moral issues.”1 John Rawls, a contemporary ethicist, urges us to examine the conse- quences of group creativity. He believes fairness is an important consideration in creative problem solving.2

For example, creative groups need to ask if their cre- ative innovations have the potential to help or hurt others. Should political consulting firms help the wealthiest or the worthiest candidates? What are the consequences when corporate executives find creative ways to “cook the books” and collect millions of unearned dollars?

Many of the creative geniuses who collaborated to create and test the atomic bomb have subsequently

struggled to deal with the consequences of their work. Dr. Richard Feynman, who later won a Nobel Prize in physics, was one of the scientists who created the atomic bomb. He recalls that the group became so caught up in the frenzy and excitement of creating the bomb that they didn’t stop to think about the conse- quences. However, when a colleague of Feynman’s said, “It’s a terrible thing that we made,” he realized that they had unleashed the greatest terror on earth.3

1Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman, Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997), p. 216. 2John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). 3James Gleick, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (New York: Vintage, 1992), p. 208.

ethics in groups The Morality of Creative Outcomes

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

Politics

In organizational settings, almost all decisions have a political com- ponent. Regardless of the procedures, many group members come to meetings with hidden agendas and political interests. For exam-

ple, a member who wants to get ahead may be reluctant to oppose an idea sup- ported by the boss. Another member who knows why a plan won’t work may remain silent in order to make sure that the person responsible for implementing the plan fails. Although most conscientious and ethical group members do not engage in such deceptive behavior, it would be naïve to assume that all members care equally about achieving the group’s common goal. Meetings can become a political arena in which individuals and special-interest groups are dedicated to meeting their own needs. Fortunately, the use of clear procedures can minimize the influence of such members.

Preexisting Preferences

An intelligent group member is rarely a blank slate who walks into a meeting unin- formed or unconcerned about the topic or issue to be discussed. Well before it’s time for a decision, most of us have powerful preexisting preferences that affect how we vote. Psychologists report that we often resist or dismiss “information that doesn’t mesh with our preconceived belief[s].” Not surprisingly, when we hear or read some- thing that supports our preferences, we view it as valid and persuasive. When we encounter something that challenges our beliefs, we often view it as flawed.44 In his book True Enough, Farhad Manjoo writes that in addition to holding different opin- ions, “we’re also holding different facts” which distorts our “perceptions about what is ‘real’ and what isn’t.”45 For example, in a 2004 survey of 928 studies about climate change published in prestigious scientific journals, “not a single one disagreed” with the view that humans contribute significantly to global warming. Why then do polls show that only 41 percent of Americans believe there is strong evidence that humans are changing the Earth’s climate?46 Preconceived preferences take a long time to change.

Fortunately, a combination of open discussions, clear goals, and the use of proce- dures can moderate these preferences, particularly when members analyze them log- ically and fairly. Even when members have preexisting preferences, procedures that require a pro-and-con discussion of each option help members understand the nature and causes of a problem.

Power

The power of individual group members can have a significant effect on whether a group achieves its goals. It is no secret that powerful people influence group deci- sions. They affect how and whether other members participate as well as whose ideas and suggestions get serious consideration. Highly influential members can convince a group “to accept invalid facts and assumptions, introduce poor ideas and sugges- tions, lead the group to misinterpret information presented to them, or lead the group off on tangents and irrelevant discussion.”47 In short, one powerful but misguided member can be responsible for the poor quality of a group’s decision.

260 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

acknowledge that politics, preexisting preferences, and power often infiltrate the group process. Group “decision making in the real world is often messy.”43

Problem-Solving Realities

Politics � � �

Preexisting Preferences � � �

Power

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Summary Study Guide 261

summary study guide Group Decision Making • Whereas decision making results in a judgment or a

choice from among alternatives, problem solving is a complex process in which groups analyze a problem and agree to a plan that will solve or reduce the nega- tive effects of the problem.

• Decision making and problem solving in groups gen- erates more ideas and produces better solutions than can individuals working alone.

• Three ways in which groups can make a final deci- sion—each of which has strengths and weaknesses— are voting, consensus seeking, and authority rule.

• A consensus decision is one that all members have a part in shaping and that all find at least minimally acceptable. Groups should be wary of false consensus, which occurs when members reluctantly give in to group pressures or an external authority.

• There are four types of discussion questions: ques- tions of fact, conjecture, value, and policy. Some dis- cussions require answers to all four types of questions.

• Differences in rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous decision-making styles can cause conflict and tension in groups.

Structured Problem Solving • The Standard Agenda includes the following steps:

task clarification, problem identification, fact finding, solution criteria and limitations, solution suggestions, solution evaluation and selection, and solution imple- mentation.

• The Functional Perspective works best when the members of a decision-making or problem-solving group are committed to (1) making the best possible decision by understanding the task and its require- ments, (2) seeking and relying on the best possible information and resources, and (3) having the critical thinking and communication skills needed for effec- tive decision making or problem solving.

• The Single Question Format focuses a group on an agreed-upon question that requires group members to focus their attention on answering the question. Two features make the Single Question Format different and effective: (1) it focuses on goal clarity and issue analysis, and (2) it cultivates a supportive group cli- mate.

Creative Problem Solving • Creative problem solving in groups includes four

stages: investigation, imagination, incubation, and insight.

• Brainstorming asks group members to generate as many ideas a possible in a short period of time with- out criticism or analysis.

• Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a two-phase process in which individual members engage in fact finding and idea generation on their own, followed by an analytical discussion of ideas and, as a result, decision making.

• The Decreased Options Technique (DOT) is a method that helps groups reduce and refine a large number of ideas into more manageable categories.

• Virtual groups must carefully match the decision- making or problem-solving method to the appropri- ate technology.

• Regardless of the method, groups can enhance cre- ativity by controlling judgment, encouraging innova- tion, asking “what if,” and using creative metaphors.

Problem-Solving Realities • Politics in a group manifest themselves in hidden

agendas and special interests. • Open discussion and clear procedures can diminish the

impact of preexisting preferences. • Differences in power affect how and whether group

members participate, whose ideas get serious thought, how decisions are made, and which solu- tions are chosen.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

262 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

critical thinking about the case study No More Horsing Around

1 How would you word the question that the group is trying to answer?

2 Is consensus seeking an appropriate method for developing a joint plan that will attract more customers? Why or why not?

3 How would you describe the differences between the private and public stable own- ers? Which, if any, of the group dialectic tensions are likely to affect the group’s ability to achieve its goal?

4 What creative methods did the group use and were they effective? Would other problem-solving methods have been more effective? Why or why not?

5 Evaluate the relevance and usefulness of the agenda questions Sally proposed.

6 To what extent, if any, did politics, preexisting preferences, and power affect the group’s ability to work together in pursuit of a common goal?

7 In your opinion, what one thing is most likely to prevent the group from achieving its goal? Explain your choice.

key terms analysis paralysis 245 authority rule 239 avoidant decision

maker 242 brainstorming 253 consensus 238 creativity 252 decision making 236 Decreasing Options

Technique (DOT) 256

dependent decision maker 242

false consensus 240 Functional

Perspective 247 intuitive decision

maker 241 majority vote 238 Nominal Group Technique

(NGT) 254

problem solving 236 question of conjecture

240 question of fact 240 question of policy 241 question of value 240 rational decision

maker 241 Reflective Thinking

Process 243

Single Question Format 249

solution criteria 245 spontaneous decision

maker 242 Standard Agenda 243 two-thirds vote 238

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

Group Work 263

group work What Is Your Decision-Making Style? Directions: For each of the following statements, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree by placing a checkmark under a number on the following scale:

1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Undecided 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

There are no right or wrong answers. Respond to the statements as honestly as you can. Think carefully before choosing option 3 (undecided)—it may suggest you cannot make decisions.

Scoring: To determine your score in each category, add the total of your responses to specific items for each type of

DECISION-MAKING STATEMENTS 1 2 3 4 5

1. When I have to make an important decision, I usually seek the opinions of others.

2. I tend to put off decisions on issues that make me uncomfortable or that are unpleasant.

3. I make decisions in a logical and systematic way.

4. When making a decision, I usually trust my feelings or gut instincts.

5. When making a decision, I generally consider the advantages and disadvantages of many alternatives.

6. I often avoid making important decisions until I absolutely have to.

7. I often make impulsive decisions.

8. When making a decision, I rely on my instincts.

9. It is easier for me to make important decisions when I know others approve or support them.

10. I make decisions very quickly.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

264 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

decision making. Your higher scores identify your preferred decision-making styles.

Answers to items 3 and 5 = _____ (Rational Decision Maker)

Answers to items 4 and 8 = _____ (Intuitive Decision Maker)

Answers to items 1 and 9 = _____ (Dependent Decision Maker)

Answers to items 2 and 6 = _____ (Avoidant Decision Maker)

Answers to items 7 and 10 = _____ (Spontaneous Decision Maker)

Sources: www.uc.ie/careers/CMS/decision/student_skills_decision_styleex.html; www.acu.edu/campusoffices/ocad/students/ exploration/assess/decision.html, updated August 24, 2005; and Suzanne Scott and Reginald Bruce, “Decision Making Style: The Development of a New Measure,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 55 (1995), pp. 818–831.

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

group assessment Problem-Solving Competencies Directions: Use this instrument to evaluate the performance of individual group members who participate in problem- solving discussions. There are five competencies related to accomplishing the group’s task and three competencies dealing with conflict, climate, and interaction. Rate individual members and the group as a whole on each item in order to assess how well an observed group solves problems and makes important decisions.

1 = Superior 2 = Satisfactory 3 = Unsatisfactory

Notes 265

PROBLEM-SOLVING COMPETENCIES 1 2 3

Defines and analyzes the problem. Appropriately clarifies, defines, and analyzes the problem confronting the group.

Identifies solution criteria. Appropriately participates in identifying criteria for assessing the quality of the group’s outcome.

Generates solutions. Appropriately identifies potential solutions or options.

Evaluates solutions. Appropriately evaluates the potential solutions and options.

Focuses on the task. Stays focused on the task, issue, or agenda item under discussion.

Manages conflict. Encourages constructive disagreements and appropriately manages nonproductive conflict.

Maintains a collaborative climate. Appropriately supports other group members.

Communicates effectively. Interacts effectively and encourages other members to participate.

notes 1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th

ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), p. 484.

2. Peter R. Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: HarperBusiness, 1967), p. 143.

3. See Charles Pavitt and Ellen Curtis, Small Group Discussion: A Theoretical Approach, 2nd ed. (Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch,

Scarisbrick, 1994), pp. 25–52; Robert S. Cathcart, Larry A. Samovar, and Linda D. Henman, Small Group Communica- tion: Theory and Practice, 7th ed. (Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark, 1996), pp. 102–03; Donald G. Ellis and B. Aubrey Fisher, Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), pp. 17–18.

IS B

N 0-

55 8-

58 58

0- 9

266 Chapter 10 Structured and Creative Problem Solving in Groups

4. Marshall Scott Poole, “Procedures for Managing Meetings: Social and Technological Innovation,” in Innovative Meeting Management, ed. Richard A. Swanson and Bonnie Ogram Knapp (Austin, TX: 3M Meeting Management Institute, 1990), pp. 73–74.

5. Julia T. Wood, “Alternative Methods of Group Decision Making,” in Small Group Communication: A Reader, 6th ed., ed. Robert S. Cathcart and Larry A. Samovar (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1992), p. 159.

6. Dennis S. Gouran, “Effective Versus Ineffective Group Decision Making,” in Managing Group Life: Communicating in Decision-Making Groups, ed. Lawrence R. Frey and J. Kevin Barge (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), p. 139.

7. Suzanne G. Scott and Reginald A. Bruce, “Decision Making Style: The Development of a New Measure.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 55 (1995), pp. 818–831.

8. Poole, pp. 54–55. 9. Pavitt and Curtis, p. 432.

10. John Dewey, How We Think (Boston: Heath, 1910). 11. Based on Kathryn Sue Young et al., Group Discussion: A

Practical Guide to Participation and Leadership, 3rd ed. (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 2001).

12. Susan Jarboe, “Procedures for Enhancing Group Decision Making,” in Communication and Group Decision Making, 2nd ed., ed. Randy Y. Hirokawa and Marshall Scott Poole (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996), p. 357.

13. Jarboe, p. 358. 14. Dennis S. Gouran and Randy Y. Hirokawa, “Functional

Theory and Communication in Decision-Making and Prob- lem-Solving Groups,” Communication and Group Decision Making, 2nd ed., ed. Randy Y. Hirokawa and Marshall Scott Poole (Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, 1996), p. 76.

15. Randy Y. Hirokawa, “Communication and Group Decision-Making Efficacy,” in Small Group Communica- tion: Theory and Practice, 7th ed., ed. Robert S. Cathcart, Larry A. Samovar, and Linda D. Henman (Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark, 1996), p. 108.

16. Randy Hirokawa and Roger Pace, “A Descriptive Investi- gation of Possible Communication-Based Reasons for Effective and Ineffective Group Decision Making,” Communication Monographs, 50 (December 1983), pp. 363–67.

17. Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson, When Teams Work Best (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001), pp. 84–85.

18. LaFasto and Larson, p. 85. 19. LaFasto and Larson, p. 88. 20. LaFasto and Larson, pp. 89–90. 21. LaFasto and Larson, p. 90. 22. Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman, Organizing

Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997), p. 17.

23. Bennis and Biederman, p. 20.

24. Based on Lee Towe, Why Didn’t I Think of That? (West Des Moines, IA: American Media, 1996), p. 7.

25. Roger L. Firestein, “Effects of Creative Problem-Solving Training on Communication Behaviors in Small Groups,” Small Group Research 21 (1990), pp. 507–521.

26. John Kao, Jamming: The Art and Discipline of Business Cre- ativity (New York: HarperBusiness, 1997), p. 17.

27. Alex F. Osborn, Applied Imagination, rev. ed. (New York: Scribner’s, 1957).

28. Tom Kelley with Jonathan Littman, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm (New York: Currency, 2001), p. 55.

29. Some of the brainstorming guidelines are based on Kelley and Littman, pp. 56–59.

30. 3M Meeting Management Team with Jeannine Drew, Mastering Meetings: Discovering the Hidden Potential of Effec- tive Business Meetings (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), p. 59.

31. Andre L. Delbecq, Andrew H. Van de Ven, and David H. Gustafson, Group Techniques for Program Planning (Glen- view, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1975).

32. P. Keith Kelly, Team Decision-Making Techniques (Irvine, CA: Richard Chang Associates, 1994), p. 29.

33. Delbecq et al., p. 8. 34. Delbecq et al., p. 8. 35. Kelly, p. 29. 36. See Kenneth E. Andersen, “Developments in Communica-

tion Ethics: The Ethics Commission, Code of Professional Responsibilities, and Credo for Ethical Communication,” Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29 (2000), pp. 131–44. The Credo for Ethical Communica- tion is also posted on the National Communication Associ- ation’s website, www.natcom.org.

37. Kao, p. 87. 38. Towe, p. 14. 39. Kao, p. 8. 40. Donald J. Noone, Creative Problem Solving, 2nd ed. (New

York: Barron’s, 1998), p. 60. 41. Towe, p. 77. 42. Noone, p. 93. 43. Dirk Scheerhorn, Patricia Geist, and Jean-Claude Teboul,

“Beyond Decision Making in Decision-Making Groups: Implications for the Study of Group Communication,” in Group Communication in Context: Studies of Natural Groups, ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994), p. 256.

44. See also Nicholas D. Kristoff, “Divided We Fall,” New York Times (April 17, 2008), p. A27.

45. Frahad Manjoo, True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2008) (2008), p. 2.

46. Manjoo, p. 23. 47. Hirokawa and Pace, p. 379.

IS B

N 0-558-58580-9

boom:

title: Working in Groups 5e Ch10
subtitle:
abstract:
text:

instructions: This is a Protected PDF document. Please enter your user name and password to unlock the text.

form:

username_label: User Name:
response:

username:
docid: 1000-0001-AA7E-00090EC1

pwd_label: Password:
neversend:

pwd:

unlocked:

rememberme: Yes
rememberme_label: Remember my user name and password.

help: If you are experiencing problems unlocking this document or you have questions regarding Protectedpdf files please contact a Technical Support representative: In the United States: 1-877-832-4867 In Canada: 1-800-859-3682 Outside the U.S. and Canada: 1-602-387-2222 Email: [email protected].
protectedpdf_version: 2012-4-13 (Version 2.6.0 Build 2.0.7.36)
version: 2012-06-05
logo:
info_publisher: This document is published by: Apollo Group, Inc.
info: