Group Cohesion

CHAPTER OUTLINE Group Decision Making: Choosing among Alternatives Group Problem Solving: Overcoming Obstacles to Achieve a Goal Three Approaches to Group Problem Solving Cultural Assumptions about Group Problem Solving and Decision Making OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, you will be able to: Define and describe the elements of group decision making. Define and describe the elements of group problem solving. Compare and contrast descriptive, functional, and prescriptive approaches to problem solving in small groups. Identify how cultural assumptions influence group problem solving and decision making. John Smith Pemberton made his first batch in a brass kettle over an open fire. To mask the bitter taste of a wide array of ingredients, Pemberton decided to add sugar to his concoction to make it taste better. He sold a portion of the rights to As a Candler, who worked with a team of people to make and distribute the tonic. Candler needed to solve the problem of how to sell the drink. After developing a system for making syrup and shipping it to local bottlers, Candler eventually sold the business to Ernest Woodruff, who helped make the company a household name by making good marketing decisions. You know the company as Coca-Cola. What started as a simple homemade tonic has become a multibillion dollar business due to a little luck and a lot of good individual and collaborative problem solving and decision making.1 The decisions you make and the problems you solve today can have significant consequences for the future. This chapter focuses on the communication strategies that help groups make quality decisions. More research has been conducted about group problem solving and decision-making communication than about any other group objective. Groups discuss issues to search for truth, groups make decisions, and groups solve problems. Whether you work for a Fortune 500 company like Coca-Cola or are serving on your local school board, the quality of decisions and the approach to problem solving can have a major influence on others. To help you understand the nature of decision making and problem solving, we first describe the elements, methods, and obstacles to quality decision making. Then we describe the nature of group problem solving, including three approaches to examining how groups solve problems: descriptive, functional, and prescriptive. We end the chapter by identifying cultural assumptions about group problem solving and decision making. In Chapter 11 we continue our discussion of group problem solving while looking at strategies and techniques that can help groups do their work effectively and efficiently. Group Decision Making: Choosing among Alternatives One critical task of groups is decision making—the process of choosing from among several alternatives. For example, in deciding which college or university to attend, you probably considered several choices. Perhaps you started by gathering information about as many as fifteen or twenty schools and then narrowed the alternatives as you considered the advantages and disadvantages of each institution. Eventually you narrowed your choice to two and made a final decision.2 Groups make decisions in essentially the same way. In this section we consider the elements, methods, and characteristics of group decision making and also examine some of the obstacles that keep groups from making high-quality decisions. Later we contrast the decision-making (choice-making) process with the process of solving problems, a more comprehensive process that involves making choices to overcome an obstacle or barrier to achieve a goal. Elements of Effective and Ineffective Group Decision Making According to Randy Hirokawa, Dennis Gouran, and several other group communication scholars, group decision making usually follows a predictable pattern.3 Groups tend to make better decisions if the pattern is explicitly identified so that the group can structure its discussion.4 Research has identified both what makes group decision making effective as well as factors that make it ineffective. Group decision making includes the following steps.5 1. Analyze the decision to be made. Effective: The group assesses the present situation. A group analyzes a situation based on available information and realizes that it needs to make a decision. For example, an airline’s board of directors must decide whether to lower fares. Thus, they look at competitors’ fares and the number of passengers those competitors transport each day. Ineffective: The group fails to analyze the present situation accurately. If a group improperly analyzes its current situation, it’s likely to make a bad decision. To analyze something is to break it down into smaller parts. Research suggests that how a group analyzes the information can dramatically affect the group’s decision.6 Having too little evidence—or none—is one of the reasons groups sometimes fail to analyze the present situation accurately. Even if group members do have ample evidence, it may be defective if they have not applied the proper tests of evidence discussed in Chapter 4. Whether the information a group has is good or bad, group members will tend to use the information if all members receive it, group members discuss it, and at least one group member champions the information.7 Just having information does not mean the group will use it well. Reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from information. Flawed reasoning, like flawed data, can contribute to a bad decision. Research suggests that groups perform better if they not only critically evaluate the information they have but also consider the impact of their final decision on solving the problem.8 2. Involve all members seeking information. Effective: The group seeks input from each member. One primary advantage of working in groups and teams is the opportunity to tap the knowledge base of many people rather than just of a few individuals. Research by John Oetzel documents what makes intuitive sense: Groups make better decisions when there is more equal participation in the discussion.9 Ineffective: Too few people are involved in the discussion. If several members dominate the conversation, decision quality suffers. Group members who believe they did not have an opportunity to voice their opinions and share information with others will not perceive the decision to have been reached fairly.10 3. Identify and clarify the goals of the decision. Effective: The group identifies what it wants to accomplish. After assessing the current situation, the group should identify its objectives. A group uncertain about its task will have difficulty making a quality decision. If its goal is clear, a group begins to identify alternatives or choices. Ineffective: The group fails to establish clear and appropriate goals. A group that has not clearly spelled out what it hopes to accomplish by making a decision has no means of assessing the effectiveness of the decision. For example, it will be more difficult for you to select the right college or university if you do not know what your major will be or what your future plans are. 4. Group members identify multiple options. Effective: The group identifies several decision alternatives. The greater the number of alternatives a group generates, the greater the likelihood it will make a good decision. To identify good options, the group should review the information that it has gathered. Ineffective: The group makes a decision based on one or two options. Poor decision making occurs when groups pounce on the first or second option identified and fail to consider a wide range of possible options before making a decision. 5. Rationally evaluate the positive and negative consequences of alternatives. Effective: Review the pros and cons of the options identified. A group must do more than identify alternatives; it should also assess the positive and negative implications of each alternative before making a decision. The pros and cons of each option should be based on the information the group has identified. Ineffective: The group fails to identify both positive and negative effects of possible decisions. A group that is so eager to make a decision that it does not take time to consider the pros and cons of its actions is setting itself up to make a bad decision. A critical error by ineffective groups is failing to consider the consequences of their decision before they make it.11 6. After analyzing the data and options, the group makes a decision. Effective: The group selects the best alternative. The alternative selected should potentially have a maximum positive outcome with minimal negative consequences. A group is more likely to select the best alternative if it has carefully assessed the situation, considered group goals, identified several choices, and noted the positive and negative implications of each. Ineffective: The group makes a poor decision, overly risky decision or no decision. Groups make bad choices for a number of reasons. Perhaps group members did not have adequate data or they misanalyzed the information they had. Or members did not share the insights or information they had. One of the biggest reasons groups make bad choices is that they fail to consider the negative consequences of the option selected. Groups sometimes have a tendency to make overly risky decisions, especially if they are making a decision that affects others and not themselves. Research suggests that very young and elderly group members tend to make less risky decisions for others.12 To avoid making decisions that may place others at risk, imagine how you would feel about the decision you are making for others if someone were imposing a policy or procedure on you. Sometimes rather than making a decision, group members suggest no decision be made. But as the saying goes, not to decide is to decide. Methods of Group Decision Making After the alternatives have been narrowed and weighed, what methods can groups use to make a decision? Knowing these methods can give you and your group options to consider when a decision needs to be made.13 Decision by Expert in Group One person in a group may seem to be the best informed about the issue, and members can turn to this person to make the choice. This expert may or may not be a group’s designated leader. Deferring to an expert from within a group may be an efficient way to make a decision, but if there is not adequate discussion, the group may not be satisfied with the outcome. Decision by Expert Outside Group A group may decide that none of its members has the credibility, knowledge, or wisdom to make a particular decision, and it may feel unable or unwilling to do so. Members can turn to someone outside the group who has authority to make a decision. Although an outside expert may make a fine decision, a group that gives up its decision-making power to one person loses the advantages of the greater input and variety of approaches that come from being a group in the first place. Averaging Individual Rankings or Ratings Group members can be asked to rank or rate possible alternatives. After the group averages the rankings or ratings, it selects the alternative with the highest average. This method of making decisions can be a useful way to start discussions and to see where the group stands on an issue. However, it is not the best way to make a final decision, because it does not take full advantage of the give-and-take of group discussion. Random Choice Sometimes groups become so frustrated that they make no decisions. They resort to coin tosses or other random approaches. These methods are not recommended for groups that take their decision making seriously. Majority Rule This is the method of group decision making most often used. Majority rule can be swift and efficient but can also leave an unsatisfied minority. Unless it allots time for discussing an issue, a group that makes a decision on the basis of majority rule may sacrifice decision quality and group cohesiveness for efficiency. Decision by Minority Sometimes a minority of group members makes a decision. The minority may yell the loudest or threaten to create problems for the group unless it gets its way. Members may ask, “Does anyone have any objections?” and, if no one answers immediately, consider the decision made. Minority members whose decision is adopted may temporarily rejoice, but over time the group will have difficulty implementing a decision that is not widely accepted. On the other hand, research suggests that when a majority of members support an idea and then the majority evaporates because several group members change their minds, the group is in a vulnerable position; a view that was previously held by a minority can swiftly become the majority view. So, in cases when you side with the minority, keep in mind that things change. Don’t side with the majority simply because it’s the majority. Groups work best when there is honest dialogue in the search for truth. Decision by Consensus Consensus occurs when all group members can support a course of action. This decision-making method is time-consuming and difficult, but members are usually satisfied with the decision. If group members must also implement the solution, this method works well. To reach a decision by consensus, group members must listen and respond to individual viewpoints and manage conflicts that arise. Consensus is facilitated when group members are able to remain focused on the goal, emphasize areas of agreement, and combine or eliminate alternatives identified by the group. Although desirable, consensus sometimes is not possible. A fallback approach is to seek a supermajority decision. A supermajority is two-thirds of the group or team. REVIEW: METHODS OF GROUP DECISION MAKING Decision by Expert: Advantages Disadvantages Group defers to the member who has the most expertise or experience or to someone outside the group with authority to make decisions Decision is made quickly Uses the expertise of a knowledgeable source of information Group members may not be satisfied with the decision The expert could be wrong Averaging Individual Rankings or Ratings: Group members rank or rate possible outcomes, and the alternative with the highest ranking or best rating is selected Uses a democratic process that taps all group members’ thinking Useful when the group needs to assess where it stands on an issue The average ranking or rating may be an alternative that no group member supports Group loses the opportunity for give-and-take discussion Random Choice: Group members flip a coin or use a similar technique so they can move forward Easy Fast More likely to result in an ineffective outcome because group members have not discussed the issues thoroughly Suggests that the group does not care about making a high-quality decision Majority Rule: Decision is made by the majority of group members Often perceived as a fair way of making decisions Can be an efficient way of making a decision Those who do not support the majority opinion may feel left out of the process Group may lose cohesiveness Decision by Minority: Group decides to support a position advocated by a vocal minority of group members Decision is made by those who feel most passionate about the outcome Helps to avoid groupthink by acknowledging opposing points of view The majority of group members may feel disenfranchised from the decision Group decision may be difficult to implement because the majority of group members do not support the outcome Decision by Consensus: Through discussion, group members reach a decision that all members can support Group members are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome Group members are more likely to participate in implementing a decision that all members support Takes time Takes skill REVIEW: COMPARING EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE GROUP DECISION MAKING Effective Decision Making Results When the Group . . . Ineffective Decision Making Results When the Group . . . Accurately assesses the present situation Improperly analyzes the present situation Establishes clear and appropriate group goals Does not establish clear and appropriate group goals Accurately identifies positive and negative consequences of decision alternatives Fails to identify enough positive and negative consequences of decision alternatives Has accurate information Works from too little information or faulty information Draws reasonable conclusions from available information Fails to think critically or logically about the available information Encourages participation by many people Allows (or settles for) participation by too few people Research suggests that our conclusions about group decision making apply to groups that interact online and in virtual group settings, as well as those that meet face to face. Yet there is some evidence that online groups may reach less effective decisions than groups that meet in person.14 Additionally, virtual group members report less satisfaction with their computermediated group experience. Virtual group members say that it typically takes more time, rather than less time, to work with people online compared with face-to-face interaction. What can group members do to make effective and efficient decisions? Research by Michael Roberto suggests that groups that make the most efficient decisions (that use their time wisely) and reach high-quality decisions do the following three things:15 1. They use clear criteria; they know what “good” looks like, and they make a decision based on clear standards for a good decision. They start the decision-making process with a vision of what the final outcome will look like. 2. They focus on finding high-quality, useful information directly related to the issue at hand, rather than gathering a large amount of information just for the sake of gathering it. 3. They break up big issues into smaller, more manageable issues to discuss. Making decisions takes time, energy, and effort. Because President Obama has to make many important decisions every day, it’s reported that he has others make some of the routine decisions for him (such as what he’ll have for dinner, what he will wear, or other routine decisions).16 He’s found that it’s helpful to keep his decision-making energy focused on the major decisions rather than spending unnecessary effort on inconsequential issues. When working in a group or team it can be helpful to make sure that you are spending your decision-making energy on important tasks rather than wasting time on insignificant issues. Group Problem Solving: Overcoming Obstacles to Achieve a Goal The board of directors of a multinational corporation, a band-booster fund-raising committee, and a group of students doing a project for a group communication class all have something in common—they have problems to solve. Have you ever been involved in group problem solving and thought to yourself, “If I weren’t working in this silly group, I could be more productive”? Despite such frustrations, a small group of people has the potential of arriving at a better solution than do individuals working alone. As we noted in Chapter 1, groups have more information and more creative approaches to surmounting obstacles than individuals do, and these advantages contribute to a higher-quality decision. Problem Solving Defined Problem solving is the process of overcoming obstacles to achieve a goal. Whereas decision making involves making a choice from among alternatives, problem solving usually requires a group to make many decisions or choices as it identifies a problem and determines how to solve it. A problem consists of three elements: (1) an undesirable existing situation, (2) a goal a group wishes to achieve, and (3) obstacles that keep a group from achieving its goal.17 Problem solving allows a group to eliminate or manage the obstacles that keep it from achieving its objective. Like decision making, problem solving begins with assessing the present situation. What’s wrong with what is happening now? Almost every problem can be phrased in terms of something you want more or less of.18 Problems often can be boiled down to such things as lack of time, money, information, or agreement. For example, a school board that decides a district needs a new high school yet realizes it lacks the money for a new school has a problem: The district has too many students for existing facilities. The board needs fewer students or more space. The goal the board wants to achieve is quality education for all students. The board cannot achieve this goal with the existing undesirable situation. The obstacles that keep the board from reaching its goal include lack of classroom space and lack of money to build more space. Every problem can be identified by noting its three elements just mentioned: the undesirable present, the group goal, and the obstacles to achieving it. REVIEW: THREE ELEMENTS OF A PROBLEM Undesirable existing situation: Something is wrong with the way things are Goal: What the group wants to achieve Obstacle: Something that keeps a group from achieving its goal Barriers to Group and Team Problem Solving What keeps groups and teams from working at their full capacity? Knowing what these barriers are can help you spot and eliminate them from your group or team. Thus, before we spend the bulk of this chapter and the next one suggesting principles and strategies to help groups work better, we lay out problems you and your group may face. One study found that lack of sleep was a major factor that explained poor problem solving. You will not be communicating well if you are tired. One acronym to keep in mind is HALT, which stands for hungry, angry, lonely, or tired. When you or other group members experience these issues, you will not be functioning at your best, so it would be advantageous to take a break and recharge and refresh before continuing.19 All decision making involves assessing a situation, identifying alternative solutions, and selecting the best alternatives. What group decision methods have worked well in your group? Benjamin Broome and Luann Fulbright spent over six years asking people who participated in group discussions what barriers kept their group from operating at full capacity. What is significant about the following list is that these are problems that group members reported; they are not just problems that an observer noted. Here’s their list of the top ten barriers.20 1. Lack of structure: Group members wanted specific methods to help their group function more efficiently. 2. Lack of cultural sensitivity: Some group members were put off by biases, prejudice, sexist comments, and the failure of some to take cultural differences into account when interacting with others. 3. Lack of planning: Group members often weren’t prepared or were unsure what the focus of the group was supposed to be. 4. Lack of resources: Sometimes groups had to meet in an inadequate physical space or just didn’t have all the information and technical support to get the job done. 5. Wrong people present: The key people with the authority or information weren’t involved in the discussion. 6. Time pressure: Groups felt pressured to achieve immediate results and to tell those in authority what they wanted to hear. 7. Poor communication: Misunderstandings, inattentiveness, and dominance by one group member or a faction of members within the group were cited as reasons for ineffective communication. 8. Unsupportive social climate: Group members sometimes did not feel they were cohesively working together, and they could not support or trust one another. 9. Negative attitudes: Some group members weren’t flexible, were unwilling to compromise about procedures, or had unrealistic expectations about the group. 10. Lack of problem-solving skill: Group members tended to focus on the solution before defining the problem, or there was a lack of balanced participation. Three Approaches to Group Problem Solving Thus far we have defined group decision making and problem solving, noted the obstacles to and the characteristics of effective group decisions, and noted barriers that keep groups from working well. We now examine three different approaches to understanding group problem solving: 1. The descriptive approach to problem solving: This approach identifies the typical patterns of communication that occur when people interact to solve problems. 2. The functional approach to problem solving: This approach identifies key task requirements and stresses the importance of effective communication as major factors that contribute to effective problem solving. 3. The prescriptive approach to problem solving: This approach identifies specific agendas and techniques to improve group problem-solving performance. In this chapter we discuss the descriptive and functional approaches to group problem solving; we introduce the prescriptive approach here but reserve a detailed discussion of it for Chapter 11. Descriptive Approach When you describe something, you use words to categorize, classify, and clarify your subject. A descriptive approach to group problem solving identifies how groups do solve problems, not how they should solve problems.21 A descriptive approach does not offer specific guidelines and techniques for solving problems in groups; rather, it outlines how most groups go about solving problems. B. Aubrey Fisher makes two assumptions about the descriptive approach: (1) There is a “natural,” or normal, process of group problem solving, and (2) a group will follow a normal problem-solving approach unless some external authority interferes with its freedom to solve its problem (for example, a supervisor gives the group an agenda or a strong-willed group leader dictates how the group should approach its task).22 One of the most fruitful areas of research from a descriptive perspective seeks to identify the normal phases, or cycles, that groups experience when solving problems. Describing Group Phases “Don’t worry, Mom, I’m just going through a phase.” Does this sound like something you may have said at one time? Maybe you were trying to alleviate your mother’s concern by assuring her that your behavior was not at all uncommon and that it surely would pass in time. Implicit here is an assumption that individuals pass through several identifiable developmental stages, each of which leads to the next. Problem-solving groups, like individuals, go through several stages. If you understand these stages, you can learn to communicate in ways that expedite a group’s passage from one stage to the next. Does every group neatly cycle through the same phases of group discussion? The answer is no. As we will discuss later in the chapter, not all groups take the same path to solve a problem. Group discussion is often messy. Many groups do, however, go through phases. Knowing what these phases are can help you spot them if they occur in your group; it’s like having a map that lets you know where you are in your group deliberations. Several researchers have attempted to identify the phases of a problem-solving group. They have observed and recorded who speaks to whom and have categorized the comments group members exchange. Over the past fifty years researchers have used various labels to describe these phases, and despite differing terminology, they have reached similar conclusions. Although some researchers describe five phases, most scholars identify four. COLLABORATING ETHICALLY: What Would You Do? Imagine that you’re the vice president of the COMM Club, a group of students who are majoring or minoring in Communication Studies that meets once a month to learn about career opportunities for Communication Studies majors. Periodically you meet with the other officers of the club as an Executive Committee to make decisions about which guest speakers will be invited to speak to the entire club. The president of the club, Charise, is a likeable and pleasant person, but she doesn’t have the foggiest idea about how to structure a decision-making meeting. You dread the executive meetings because they often run overtime; they have no agenda, people get off topic, and Charise typically has to call another meeting because little was accomplished. You don’t have the time for such wasteful meetings, yet you don’t want to quit the group because being vice president of the COMM Club will look good on your resumé. Because you’ve taken a course in small-group communication you have some ideas about how to make the meetings run more smoothly. You’ve gently suggested some of your ideas to Charise, but she just isn’t picking up on the hints you’re dropping. In fact, Charise seems to resent your suggestions and thinks you’re really trying to take over the group. You don’t want to be the leader; you just want to attend meetings that get something accomplished. Is it appropriate or ethical to be more forceful in suggesting how to run the meetings? What could you do to help the meetings run more smoothly even though you’re not the designated leader? What would you do? Of the research on developmental phases of groups, Fisher’s is the most significant for small group communication. He focused primarily on what was said throughout the development of his test groups. We use his terminology in the following sections. Phase 1: Orientation In the first phase of small group interaction, “group members break the ice and begin to establish a common basis for functioning.”23 Communication during this phase tends to be oriented toward getting to know one another, sharing backgrounds, and tentatively approaching the group’s task. You are not likely to say anything that might prompt the rest of the group to reject you. Fisher noted that “more ambiguous comments . . . are contained in Phase 1 than in any other phase except the third, which is also characterized by ambiguity.”24 Research on the orientation phase suggests that group members’ communication is directed at orienting themselves toward others as well as to the group’s task, which can also be said about the other phases. What sets this phase apart from the others is the degree to which the social dimension is emphasized and the tentative, careful way in which the task dimension is approached. Yet another characteristic of the orientation phase is primary tension. Primary tension occurs when group members are uncertain how to behave and feel somewhat awkward about what to do or say. Clear group role expectations have not emerged; clear social norms are not yet developed. Some group members may be quiet, others may be exceptionally polite, yet others may laugh nervously and smile—all of which are manifestations of the primary tension that occurs when groups first congregate. Even the most efficient, task-motivated group will spend some time socializing and getting acquainted. Do not underestimate the importance of this type of interaction. Interpersonal trust—an essential ingredient for an effective working environment—does not happen all at once. You begin slowly, with small talk, to determine whether it is safe to move on to deeper levels of interaction. The orientation phase, then, develops trust and group cohesiveness, which are important for the group’s survival in the second phase—conflict. Phase 2: Conflict During the orientation phase, group members begin to form opinions about their own positions in the group and about the group’s task. By the second phase they start asserting these opinions. They have tested the water in the first phase and now are ready to jump in. On the process, or social, level, this is a period in which individuals compete for status in the group. Two or more potential leaders may emerge, with the support for each dividing the group into camps. This jockeying for leadership, power, and position in a group has been called secondary tension.25 This secondary tension occurs after the initial, or primary, tension has diminished and the group settles down to focus on both the task at hand and who will be influential in helping the group reach a conclusion. Secondary tension can occur abruptly. The group may be making progress, but conflict suddenly erupts over an issue and the group gets off its agenda. Communication during the conflict phase is characterized by persuasive attempts at changing others’ opinions and reinforcing one’s own position. Some participants relish the idea of a good argument, whereas others see conflict as something to avoid at all cost. Avoiding conflict, however, means avoiding issues relevant and even crucial to the group’s success. Just as individuals need to assert their own points of view, so do groups need to investigate all relevant alternatives in order to select the best solutions. The conflict phase is necessary to both the task and the process dimensions of small group communication. Through conflict, you begin to identify the task issues that confront the group and clarify your own and others’ roles. This clarification leads toward greater predictability, less uncertainty, and the establishment of group norms. There is evidence that groups that spend a considerable amount of time together may have a less prolonged period of conflict, but they nonetheless do experience conflict.26 Phase 3: Emergence In Phase 3, new patterns of communication indicate a group’s emergence from the conflict phase. If a group is going to function as a cohesive unit, it must resolve the conflict of Phase 2. Although conflict remains in Phase 3, what sets the emergence phase apart from the preceding conflict phase is the way in which members deal with conflict. This shift is most apparent in the reappearance of ambiguity in task-related statements. Task and process dimensions are interwoven at this stage. Although the group is divided, there is also clarity. Leadership patterns and roles have been established, the issues and problems confronting the group have been identified, and the need to settle differences and reach consensus has become apparent. One of the factors that helps decisions and solutions emerge is to listen to group members who are perceived as experts.27 As more people perceive someone has having high credibility and an expert point of view, groups will tend to agree with the expert as a way to manage conflict. Ambiguity appears to be the means by which individual group members can comfortably shift their positions toward group consensus. The group settles on norms and moves toward consensus via ambiguous statements that gradually modify dissenting positions. Such ambiguous statements might take the form of qualifiers or reservations to the previous position: “I still would like to see our company merge with the Elector Electronics Corporation, but maybe we could consider a merger later in the year. A merger may be more appropriate next fall.” Such a statement allows a person to save face and still allows the group to reach consensus. Phase 4: Reinforcement A spirit of unity characterizes the final phase of group interaction. In the preceding three phases, group members struggle through getting acquainted, building cohesiveness, expressing individuality, competing for status, and arguing over issues. The group eventually emerges from those struggles with a sense of direction, consensus, and a feeling of group identity. Not surprisingly, then, the fourth phase is characterized by positive feelings toward the group and its decisions. Finally, members feel a genuine sense of accomplishment. Reinforcement predominates in communication: Jim: I may have been against it at first, but I’ve finally seen the light. We’re going in the right direction now. Marilyn: Yes, but don’t shortchange your contribution, Jim. If you hadn’t opposed it so vehemently, we never would have developed the idea so fully. Fisher noted that ambiguous and unfavorable comments all but disappear in the fourth phase, being replaced by uniformly favorable comments and reinforcement. At this time, all the hassle of group decision making and problem solving seems worthwhile. The group is at its most cohesive, individual satisfaction and sense of achievement are high, and uncertainty is at a low level. Other Descriptive Models of Group Problem Solving Although it may appear from our discussion that a group goes through four distinct phases of development in a predictable, easy-to-identify way, group deliberations are seldom that orderly. Communication does not typically operate in such a linear, step-by-step manner.28 Dialectical Theory One theory that helps to explain the messiness of group interaction is dialectical theory. Dialectical theory suggests that during communication there are often competing tensions pulling the conversation into multiple directions.29 For example, groups like a sense of stability; they want to predict what will happen because many group members like familiar patterns.30 Yet, because communication is dynamic, there is also an interest in developing new ideas and procedures—groups expect change. Another dialectical tension is being separate from others while also being connected. The team versus the individual and structure versus interaction are other dialectical tensions that occur when groups communicate. Because of these tensions and because communication is not usually (or even often) orderly and neat, the descriptive phases that we’ve described have been observed in some but not all groups. Group communication researchers have identified several other models that describe the patterns of communication within groups: the spiraling model, the punctuated equilibrium model, and the multisequence model. Spiraling Model Group-communication scholars Tom Scheidel and Laura Crowell’s research suggests that groups may not march through four phases but rather cycle, or spiral, through them throughout the group or team’s development.31 For example, the first issue confronting the group may be “What’s the purpose of this group?” A group will probably spend some time getting oriented to this task, conflict may follow as members learn each person’s objectives, and after discussion, a consensus may emerge about the group’s purpose. Finally, members may assure one another that their purpose has been developed clearly. Perhaps the next issue to come before the group is “How will we organize our work—should we have a subcommittee?” Again, the members may go through orientation, conflict, emergence, and reinforcement about a specific issue. Because group discussions tend to hop from topic to topic, a group may get bogged down in conflict, abandon the issue, and move to another issue. Thus, groups may spiral through phases for each issue, or group members may get sidetracked and abandon discussions about a particular topic. VIRTUAL GROUPS Research continues to describe the impact of technology on group problem solving.32 Although use of virtual team communication continues to grow, we apparently still like to connect face to face if we’re scattered in many locations trying to solve complex problems. One study found that the more different locations virtual team members are in, the more likely it is that they will want to periodically connect face to face rather than use only virtual communication channels.33 Another study found that when working in virtual groups, some group members connect with other virtual group members outside of the group using instant messaging. These instant messages, or it could be text messages or other messages that aren’t directed at all group members, but just another member or two, can help a group manage conflict.34 The researchers suggested that these private instant messages are like “backstage” whispering. In face-to-face groups some group members have side comments. Apparently the same thing happens in virtual groups and these behind-the-scene comments can help groups move forward. The use of technology does not inherently result in making better team solutions and decisions; it’s still people who make the decisions and solve the problems. Technology doesn’t do the work; it’s just another way of connecting to others. The following brief summary describes the advantages and disadvantages of using e-mail, texting, skype, or other ways of collaborating virtually: Advantages: Virtual communication methods seem to work best for more structured, linear tasks. In computer-mediated meetings, the ideas of everyone can more easily and accurately be captured and recorded. Virtual groups often generate more ideas when brainstorming than face-to-face groups. Disadvantages: The increased speed of information transfer allows less time for reflection and evaluation of ideas. Thus, technology may sometimes help us make mistakes faster. Some group members do a less thorough job of evaluating the pros and cons of assessing alternatives when using computer-mediated technology rather than when interacting in face-to-face settings. Research by Charles Pavitt and Kelly Johnson found that groups do seem to exhibit spiraling tendencies, but not all groups behave in quite the same way, thus confirming the challenge of formulating tidy descriptions of how groups do their work.35 Pavitt and Johnson’s research also suggests that the order in which groups discuss topics and issues may not be as important as whether the topics are discussed or not. Therefore, the content of what you say may be more important than the precise sequence in which the content is discussed. J. E. McGrath is another prominent small group researcher who suspects that groups and teams cycle through their work rather than following specific phases.36 His theory includes the dimensions of time (T), interaction (I), and performance (P), which he calls TIP theory. McGrath hypothesizes that groups do what they need to do at a given moment based on their needs at that moment and on what function the group needs to perform. A group will become oriented or focused on a task when there is uncertainty, not just when it is first formed. Punctuated Equilibrium Model Connie Gersick describes what she calls a pattern of “punctuated equilibrium.”37 During the first half of a group’s existence, group members may experience uncertainty and indecision about what to do or how to proceed, resulting in inertia; nothing seems to be happening. And then, about midway through the group’s deliberation, a revolutionary transition, or breakpoint, punctuates the seeming equilibrium, and “nothing happening” changes to “something happening.” The equilibrium of inertia is punctuated by a burst of activity. Then there will be a second inertia phase—a phase when the group seems to stop and again ponder which direction to go next before moving on to accomplishing the task. Gersick thinks this punctuated equilibrium model may only occur in groups that are working within a specific time limit; it may be less likely to occur in a group with an unstructured or open-ended time frame. Additional research suggests that punctuated equilibrium can occur within the phases of group discussion that we described earlier.38 During the conflict phase, for example, there will be bursts of progress in resolving the conflict, as well as periods of time when it appears nothing much is happening. Multisequence Model Yet another descriptive, nonphase model of how groups and teams typically function is proposed by M. Scott Poole.39 As the term multisequence implies, groups and teams may be doing several things at once rather than cycling though predictable phases. Poole builds on Fisher’s phase research by suggesting that groups engage in three types of activity tracks that do not necessarily follow logical step-by-step patterns. Poole believes that three types of activities best describe group interaction:40 1. Task-process activities help the group accomplish its work, such as analyzing a problem, becoming oriented to the components of a problem, establishing criteria, and evaluating proposed solutions. Answering such questions as “What’s the problem here?” “How can we better understand the problem?” and “How effective will our solution be?” are examples of task-process activities. Furthermore, Poole indicates that there are three types of task-process activities: (1) activities that focus on the problem, (2) activities that serve executive functions (such as keeping the discussion oriented and on task), and (3) solution activities.41 2. Relational activities manage relationships and help maintain the group climate. For example, verbal or nonverbal communication that indicates who likes and dislikes whom can be categorized as relational activity. Communication has both a task dimension and a relationship dimension. Relational activities are also communication behaviors that sustain or damage interpersonal relationships among group members. Criticism, conflict, praise, and encouragement help group members understand their relationships with one another. Relational activities also affect a group’s working climate. The specific relational activities that Poole identifies include (a) discussion about work-focused relationships, (b) discussion that manages conflict, (c) integration talk (connecting one person’s ideas to those of others), and (d) discussion about ambiguous relationships (expressing uncertainty about relationships).42 3. Topical focus activities deal with the “general themes, major issues, or arguments of concern to the group at a given point in the discussion.”43 Ernest Bormann and other researchers have noted that groups often focus their conversations on themes or topics that serve as the groups’ actual agendas.44 This third type of activity, then, deals with major topics that do not relate to a group’s specific task or to member relationships. REVIEW: A COMPARISON OF DESCRIPTIVE MODELS OF GROUP PROCESS Poole’s three activity tracks do not all develop at the same rate or according to the same pattern. Some groups spend a considerable portion of their time developing relationships before discussing their tasks in great detail. In contrast, task-oriented groups often devote considerable energy to completing their tasks, letting relationships play minor roles in group deliberations. Groups switch activity tracks at various breakpoints, which occur as groups switch topics, adjourn, or schedule planning periods. Another type of breakpoint, called a delay, occurs because of group conflict or inability to reach consensus. Whereas groups may expect and schedule some breakpoints, they usually do not schedule delays. Poole notes, “depending on the nature of the delay and the mood of the group, [a] breakpoint can signal the start of a difficulty or a highly creative period.”45 A disruption, the third type of breakpoint, results from a major conflict or a realization that a group may not be able to complete its task. To manage disruption, a group must be flexible.46 Poole’s analysis of group phases and group activity emphasizes the process nature of group communication and problem solving, rather than assuming that groups proceed through a linear, step-by-step approach. Although several researchers have documented chronological phases in a group’s efforts, a group’s communication can also be described by the three activity tracks Poole identifies. A descriptive approach to group communication can help you better understand and explain why certain types of statements are made in groups and how a group develops over time. With an understanding of the process, you should be in a better position to evaluate and improve your participation in group meetings. Functional Approach The descriptive approach to group problem solving does exactly what it implies: It describes what happens when groups communicate, whether the interaction involves going through phases, spirals, or sequences. The functional approach emphasizes that members of effective groups perform certain task requirements (functions) when they communicate with one another.47 The functional approach has elements of description because the researchers who propose this approach have observed groups and described the task requirements of effective groups. There’s also a hint of prescription in this approach, in that the task requirements are presumed to be useful strategies that will help groups make better-quality decisions and arrive at good solutions. Thus, the functional approach includes elements of the conceptual frameworks of both descriptive and prescriptive approaches. The functional approach assumes that groups are goal-oriented and that to accomplish the group goal, certain activities or communication functions need to be performed. Groups and teams become effective, argue the functional theorists, not just by applying communication techniques (the prescriptive approach) but also by communicating in ways that affect the fundamental processes of how the group achieves its goal.48 It is through communication that group members perform key functions that enhance group problem solving and decision making. The primary way researchers have identified the functions of effective problem solving is by examining the behaviors of both effective and ineffective groups. Certain types of communication and critical thinking distinguish effective groups from ineffective ones.49 What are the key functions of effective problem solving? According to Randy Hirokawa, groups must perform five key functions in order to develop a high-quality solution:50 1. Develop an accurate understanding of the problem. Specify precisely what the problem is. Identify the causes, symptoms, and history of the problem. Use data and information to help the group understand the problem. 2. Develop requirements for an acceptable choice. Establish criteria—explicit standards for an acceptable solution. Identify what a good solution will look like so members will know one when they see it. 3. Develop many alternatives to solve the problem. The more high-quality alternatives generated, the greater the chance that the group will find a high-quality solution. Just one or two ideas suggested early in the discussion will usually result in a less-effective solution. 4. Assess the positive features of the alternatives or options for solving the problem. Systematically identify the merits or benefits that will occur if the suggested solution or solutions are implemented. 5. Assess the negative features of the alternatives or options for solving the problem. Balance the positive benefits that have been identified with negative features or disadvantages of the suggested solution or solutions. Group communicators who incorporate these functions into their interactions with others are what Hirokawa and other researchers call vigilant thinkers. Vigilant thinkers are critical thinkers. They pay attention to the process of problem solving. There is evidence that groups that believe they will be effective in using vigilant thinking skills will, in fact, do a better job of thinking critically and effectively.51 Of these five functions, is one more important than the others? Recent research points to the importance of all the functions, but the best predictors of quality group performance are functions 1, 2, and 5. So, for best results, (1) analyze the problem; be sure to use data and information rather than just sharing opinions when analyzing the current situation; (2) establish criteria—know what a good solution looks like; and (3) evaluate the potential negative consequences of possible solutions. Discuss certain standards or expectations before hunting for a solution.52 Communication researcher Elizabeth Graham and her colleagues found that effective groups established and used clear criteria and made positive comments about the alternative solutions that group members suggested; in essence, such groups had clear goals and said nice things about solutions.53 The researchers suspected that the positive comments helped to establish a supportive group climate. In contrast, Kevin Barge suggests that the following functions are essential for an effective problem-solving group. Group members should (1) network with others within and outside the group to gather effective information; (2) acquire the skill of data splitting—that is, analyzing information effectively; (3) generate and evaluate solutions; and (4) manage their relationships effectively by means of listening, feedback, and negotiation skill.54 The vigilant-thinking functions suggested by Hirokawa and his colleagues, as well as the functions identified by Barge, are similar to those suggested by Irving Janis: Gather accurate information, analyze the information, draw reasonable conclusions from the data, generate solutions, evaluate the costs and risks of the solutions, and select the best one.55 Although research does support the functional theory, not all research confirms that performing the functional task requirements always results in enhanced group decision making and problem solving.56 In computer-mediated situations, for example, research has not found uniform support for functional theory. Although the research conclusions supporting functional theory have not been unanimous, the functional perspective of group problem solving nonetheless continues to enjoy support and application among group communication researchers and educators. PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE: Real Groups, Real Challenges: The Bona Fide Group Perspective The phrase bona fide simply means real, authentic, or genuine. The bona fide perspective on groups suggests that the context for and boundaries of the groups in which we participate move and change.57 Thus, a bona fide perspective on groups is concerned with how real groups function in organizations. A bona fide perspective encourages us to look not at how groups are described in a textbook, but at how they operate in the real world with the tensions, pressures, and reality of being part of many groups simultaneously. According to Linda Putnam, who has done extensive research and writing about bona fide groups, we need to be more sensitive to how groups really operate in natural settings. Most groups and teams do not exist in isolation from other groups and from the larger organization of which they are a part. Therefore, Putnam suggests focusing on two elements when considering bona fide groups: 1. how the group is connected to other groups and the larger organization and 2. how the group operates in relationship to its external context. What Happens in Real Groups in Real Organizations? YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE A MEMBER OF MANY GROUPS AT THE SAME TIME. Most people do not belong to just one team and focus all of their energy and talent on one primary task. Right now you are probably a member of many different kinds of groups.58 THERE ARE MULTIPLE INFLUENCES ON WHAT HAPPENS IN YOUR GROUP. Groups and teams are connected to and genuinely influenced by what else is happening in an organization. If, for example, the organization is losing money and on a tight budget, then the lack of money affects how a group operates within the organization. A group does not do its work in isolation. Another aspect of a bona fide perspective involves the other people who work in the group. YOU ARE LIKELY TO HAVE GROUP MEMBERS WHO COMMUNICATE VIRTUALLY. You may be assigned to work with others who are not in the same physical location as you; they may work in another city, state, or country. And even if your group does meet together face to face, it’s likely that you will exchange information via text, e-mail, Facebook, or other mediated means. Real-Life Applications What real-world applications does a bona fide perspective on groups have for the groups and teams to which we belong? If you’re a leader or manager in an organization, a bona fide perspective suggests that you need to be aware that the people who work under your supervision have multiple roles and multiple jobs. Just as your instructor needs to be aware that you’re likely taking more than one class, so should a manager realize that her or his employees are working on multiple projects at the same time. Remember that the groups and teams you work with today may not be the same groups and teams you work with tomorrow. Group membership changes. The changing composition of the group may result in the group’s having to go through numerous periods of reorientation as group members come and go. Group members may participate in the group via e-mail or phone and not face to face. Special effort must be made to integrate the long-distance group members into the fabric of the group. Remember that when people work on a group or team task, they are constrained by the environment of the larger organization in which they work. Groups do not work in isolation—group members are connected to others even though all they may be aware of is the interaction in the group or team in which they work. Communication Functions of Effective Group Problem Solvers The functional perspective assumes that a group will make a higher-quality decision if group members analyze information appropriately, generate an ample number of ideas, evaluate information and solutions, and remain sensitive to others. Based on the work of several group communication researchers, the following specific communication functions are considered essential to effective problem solving.59 1. Analysis function: Group members who effectively analyze information and ideas do several things: They establish clear criteria. Groups and teams have their goal clearly in mind as they analyze the issues. They see the problem from a variety of viewpoints. Individuals often look at a problem as it affects themselves. A skilled problem solver considers how the problem affects others, too, and is able to think about an issue from other people’s vantage points.60 They gather data and research issues. Good problem solvers do not rely on their own opinions. They spend time in the library or develop surveys to gather information and others’ opinions about an issue. They use evidence effectively to reach a valid conclusion. Beyond just collecting evidence, a good problem solver needs to know how to use evidence to reach a conclusion. They ask appropriate questions. One big problem groups have is keeping the discussion focused on the issues. Members often bounce from one idea or topic to the next. Good problem solvers know this and use questions to help keep the group moving toward its goal. Questions such as “Where are we now?” or “What’s the next step in solving our problem?” or “Aren’t we getting off the track here?” can help the group get back to the task. 2. Idea-generation function: An essential aspect of a well-functioning problem-solving group is group members who are creative and inventive, who find ways to keep ideas flowing. They search for many alternatives or solutions to a problem. Effective groups are not content to have just one or two approaches to a problem. They identify many solutions that may help overcome the obstacles keeping the group from reaching its goal. They make high-quality statements to the group. According to several researchers, high-quality statements are precise rather than rambling and abstract. They are also consistent with previous evidence and relevant to the topic under discussion, and they positively reinforce the comments of other group members.61 They take a vacation from a problem to revitalize the group. If the group gets bogged down and cannot reach agreement, postpone further discussion if possible. Sometimes you get a burst of creativity when you are not even thinking about a problem.62 Have you ever had an idea come to you while you were jogging, driving somewhere, or taking a shower? Give your mind a chance to work on the problem by giving yourself a break from agonizing over a solution. 3. Evaluation function: Being able to separate good ideas from bad ideas is a critical function of group members who are good problem solvers. They examine the pros and cons of potential solutions. Give special attention to considering what might go wrong before implementing a solution. They evaluate the opinions and assumptions of others. Do not just accept another person’s conclusion or opinion at face value. One study found that groups that reach better solutions include members who take the time to test the assumptions of others.63 Although you should not attack another person’s credibility, all opinions and assumptions need to be supported by evidence. A group that tactfully examines the basis for an opinion can determine whether the opinion is valid. They test solutions to see if they meet preestablished criteria. Criteria are standards for acceptable solutions. Such criteria as “It should be within the budget” and “It should be implemented within six months” are important to problem solving. If a group has generated criteria for a solution, a good problem solver reminds the group what the criteria are and evaluates possible solutions according to these previously identified standards. 4. Personal-sensitivity function: As we have emphasized throughout the book, groups have both a task and a relationship dimension. Members of successfully functioning teams or groups are other-oriented, empathic, sensitive to the needs of others, and thoughtful listeners.64 They are concerned for both the group task and the feelings of others. Being too task-oriented is not good for the overall group climate. As discussed in Chapter 5, sensitivity to the feelings of others can enhance the group climate and foster a supportive, rather than a defensive, approach to achieving a group goal. One study found that group members who engage in storytelling, especially stories relevant to the task at hand, help the group balance the deliberative task talk with a more relationally focused story; the use of stories helps the group achieve a more effective outcome.65 They listen to minority arguments and opinions. It is always tempting to disregard the voice of a lone dissenter. That individual may, however, have a brilliant idea or a legitimate complaint about the majority point of view. Assume that all ideas have merit; do not discount ideas because they come from members who are not supporting the majority at the moment. According to the functional perspective, effective group members take breaks when they are having trouble solving a problem, instead of agonizing over a solution. What activities help you generate ideas? REVIEW: A SUMMARY OF GROUP COMMUNICATION FUNCTIONS Functions Characteristics of an Effective Group Problem Solver Analysis function Sees the problem from a variety of viewpoints Gathers data and researches the issues Uses evidence effectively Asks appropriate questions Idea-generation function Searches for many solutions to a problem Makes high-quality statements Takes a vacation from the problem to revitalize the group Evaluation function Evaluates the pros and cons Evaluates the opinions and assumptions of others Tests proposed solutions to see if they meet preestablished criteria Personal sensitivity function Shows concern for both the group task and the feelings of others Listens to minority arguments Prescriptive Approach When the doctor gives you a prescription, he or she is telling you to do something very specific: Take a measured dose of a particular medicine to treat your medical problem. A prescriptive approach to group problem solving is based on the assumption that groups need more than a general understanding of how groups solve problems or what the key functions of group communication are. The prescriptive approach offers specific do’s and don’ts for structuring a group’s problem-solving agenda. Prescriptive approaches invite group members to perform certain behaviors in a specific order to achieve a group goal. Fisher describes the prescriptive approach as providing “guidelines, a road map, to assist the group in achieving consensus. A prescriptive approach is based on an assumed ‘ideal’ process.”66 According to Fisher, two assumptions underlie the prescriptive approach to problem solving: (1) Group members are consistently rational, and (2) the prescribed agenda or set of techniques will result in a better solution. The descriptive approach to group problem solving and decision making helps a group understand how groups usually solve problems. The functional approach identifies tasks that should be performed to enhance the group’s effectiveness. The prescriptive approach offers specific recommendations for sequencing certain types of communication in a group. Which approach is best? Some scholars advocate the descriptive approach, pointing out that it does not constrain a group from its normal or natural process. These scholars reject the prescriptive approach as being too rigid. Others suggest that groups should consciously perform key functions to maximize effectiveness. Yet others contend that the prescriptive approach gives a group needed structure for solving problems because working in groups often results in uncertainty and ambiguity.67 Arthur VanGundy categorizes problems as either structured or unstructured.68 An unstructured problem is one about which we have little information and thus high uncertainty. The more unstructured the problem, the greater the need for a prescriptive technique of gathering and analyzing information to solve the problem. One study suggests that leaders who give a group a structure by setting goals, monitoring time, and providing suggestions about procedure enhance the group’s perceived effectiveness.69 VanGundy has identified over 70 techniques that help provide structure to the problem-solving process. CASE STUDY: KEEP TUITION LOW: Practice in Applying Principles The Association of Student Governance (ASG), the campus student governing board of The State University (TSU), had heard rumors that a major tuition increase might take place next year. TSU was trying to be nationally recognized as a top-ranked university, and to do that the university president had decided to hire more faculty to have a favorable student-faculty ratio. Hiring faculty was expensive. Students were concerned, however, that hiring more faculty (a good thing) would increase the tuition so that many students wouldn’t be able to afford to attend TSU. So the ASG president appointed a student task force to study the issue and make a recommendation as to whether the ASG group would support a tuition increase or not. Five students were appointed to the task force: Celeste, Bart, Sarah, Alex, and Tisha. Celeste was appointed chair of the task force; she was a communication studies major who had recently completed a course in group communication and had an open mind about the tuition increase. Bart, a pre-med major, really didn’t care how much tuition would cost; he thought he’d get a high-paying job after attending medical school and he could easily pay back any loans. Sarah, who recently transferred from a community college, planned on being a teacher and wanted the tuition to remain as low as possible. Sarah’s friends were hoping that she would also recommend no tuition increase. Alex, a music major, was planning on transferring to a music conservatory next year, so he didn’t really care what TSU’s new tuition would be. Tisha’s grandparents paid for her tuition so she had no real concern about tuition increasing. But she also wanted TSU to be nationally recognized so she agreed, prior to the task force’s discussion, that tuition should increase—a quality education is expensive. When Celeste called the first meeting together she quickly determined that task force members already had their minds made up based upon their personal circumstances. Bart and Alex made it known they didn’t care whether tuition was increased or not. Sarah said if there was an increase she’d have to drop out. Tisha was predisposed to no increase, but didn’t really care since her tuition was paid for. Celeste knew from her group communication course that the best decisions were made after thoroughly evaluating the information. She was determined to get the task force to make an informed decision rather than rely on preconceived personal opinions. Because TSU is a state-supported institution, all of the budget information for the university was available online, allowing access to a lot of information. Questions for Analysis 1. Based upon the definition of problem solving and decision making presented on pages 241–248, is this group’s primary task to make a decision or solve a problem? 2. What barriers to group and team problem solving described on pages 247–248 do you find evident in this group? What should be done to overcome the barriers? 3. Based upon how groups sometimes proceed when solving problems (as presented in the descriptive approach to problem solving on pages 249–256), what should Celeste expect to happen at group meetings? 4. How would you recommend Celeste organize the agenda of the meetings to ensure that the key functions of problem solving and decision making are achieved? 5. Based on the analysis functions described on pages 259–260, what could the group do to make sure that they properly analyzed the issues before making a recommendation? What information would be helpful in analyzing the issues? Clearly each approach has its unique advantages. Draw on all three approaches as you work at becoming an effective problem-solving group participant. If the task is very simple, a group may not need a cumbersome, predetermined set of prescriptions. Research suggests, however, that if the task is complex (as many group tasks are) specific guidelines and procedures will help the group work more effectively.70 In this chapter we have emphasized descriptive and functional perspectives. In Chapter 11 we describe in more detail prescriptive approaches, formats, and techniques to give you some options in structuring group problem solving. Cultural Assumptions about Group Problem Solving and Decision Making As we conclude this chapter, we remind you that assumptions about the descriptions, functions, and prescriptions of group and team problem solving and decision making will be filtered through the cultural perspective group members hold. As we noted in Chapter 1, some cultures (notably those of the United States, Britain, and northern Europe) assume an individualistic approach to accomplishing work, whereas other cultures (such as Asian cultures) assume a collaborative or collectivistic mind-set.71 In addition to culture, gender also contributes to group differences that researchers suggest influence how group members interact. For example, Katherine Hawkins and Christopher Power found that females tend to ask more probing questions during group deliberations than do males.72 You need not travel abroad to experience different cultural perspectives. In the United States you are likely to encounter individuals with a wide range of cultural and ethnic traditions. Even within one region of the United States, group members may differ in their approaches to and assumptions about problem solving, collaboration, and teamwork. What strategies can bridge these cultural differences? Consider these suggestions.73 Develop mindfulness. To be mindful is to be consciously aware of cultural differences and to note that there are differences between your assumptions and the assumptions of others.74 Consciously say to yourself, “These group members may have a different assumption about how to accomplish this task. Before I impose my strategies on them, I’ll listen and make sure I understand what they are saying.” Be flexible. Realize that you may have to adapt and change according to the perceptions and assumptions others hold. Tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity. Working with others from a culture or cultures different from your own is bound to create a certain amount of uncertainty and confusion. Being patient and tolerant will help you manage cultural differences when collaborating with others.75 Resist stereotyping and making negative judgments about others. Ethnocentrism is the assumption that your cultural heritage is superior. Assuming superiority when evaluating others typically produces defensiveness. Ask questions. An essential element of any effective team is common ground rules; these can best be established simply by asking others how they work and solve problems and about their preferences for establishing norms and ground rules. © 2005 Scott Adams, Inc./Dist. by UFS, Inc. Be other-oriented. Empathy and sensitivity to others are keys to bridging cultural differences. Although simply considering an issue from someone else’s point of view will not eliminate the difference, it will help enhance understanding.76 One of the seven habits of highly effective people identified by Stephen Covey nicely summarizes this principle: Seek to understand before being understood.77 STUDY GUIDE: REVIEW, APPLY, AND ASSESS GROUP COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES GROUP DECISION MAKING: CHOOSING AMONG ALTERNATIVES Objective 1 Define and describe the elements of group decision making. Group Communication Principles Start the decision-making process by accurately assessing the present situation. Establish clear and appropriate group goals to frame the decision-making objective. Identify positive and negative consequences of the alternatives identified. Ensure that group members have accurate information. Determine whether group members are drawing reasonable conclusions for the information that is available. Key Terms Decision making 241 Supermajority decision 244 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Hurricane Preparedness Case Imagine that you are a resident of a coastal city during hurricane season. Although you have idly watched local meteorologists track Hurricane Bruce’s destructive course through the Caribbean for several days, you have not given any serious thought to the possibility that the storm might directly affect you. However, at about seven o’clock this morning, the storm suddenly veered northward, and it is now on course for a direct hit. The National Hurricane Center in Miami has posted a hurricane warning for your community. Forecasters predict landfall in approximately nine to twelve hours. Having taken no advance precautions, you are stunned by the amount of work you now have to do to secure your three-bedroom suburban home, which is about half a mile from the beach. You have enough food in the house for two days. You also have one candle and a transistor radio with one weak battery; you have no other hurricane supplies. Your task is to rank the following items in terms of their importance for ensuring your survival and the safety of your property, with number 1 being the first thing you should do, 2 the second, and so on. Work individually. After you have made your individual rankings, work in a small group again and rank these items according to their importance. Your group’s task is to reach consensus. _______ Put gas in the car _______ Trim the bushes and trees _______ Fill the bathtub with water _______ Install shutters for the windows _______ Buy enough food for a week _______ Buy batteries and candles _______ Bring patio furniture indoors _______ Buy dry ice _______ Invite friends over for a hurricane party _______ Drain the swimming pool _______ Listen to TV/radio before doing anything _______ Have an evacuation plan _______ Stock up on charcoal and charcoal lighter for the barbecue grill Stranded in the Desert Situation 78 You are a member of a geology club that is on a field trip to study unusual formations in the New Mexico desert. It is the last week in July. You have been driving over old trails, far from any road, in order to see out-of-the-way formations. At about 10:30 a.m. your club’s specially equipped minibus overturns, rolls into a 20-foot ravine, and burns. The driver and the club’s professional adviser are killed; the rest of you are uninjured. You know that the nearest ranch is approximately 45 miles east of where you are. There is no closer habitation. When your club does not report to its motel that evening, you will be missed. Several people know generally where you are but will not be able to pinpoint your whereabouts. The area around you is rugged and dry. There is a shallow waterhole nearby, but the water is contaminated by worms, animal feces and urine, and several dead mice. Before you left you heard a weather report that the temperature would reach 108°F, making the surface temperature 128°F. All of you are dressed in lightweight summer clothing and all have hats and sunglasses. In escaping from the minibus, each group member salvaged a couple of items; there are twelve items in all. Assume that your small group comprises members of the geology club and that you all have agreed to stick together. Your group’s task is to rank the salvaged items according to their importance to your survival, starting with 1 for the most important through 12 for the least important. Scoring: Total the score for each group member. A perfect score is 65; the lowest possible score is 13. Your instructor may invite you to share your ratings of other group members anonymously. Or, if you don’t share your ratings, simply note how you evaluate your skill in comparison to your ratings of other group members. _______ Magnetic compass _______ Heavy-duty, light blue canvas (20 square feet) _______ Book: Plants of the Desert _______ Rearview mirror _______ Large knife _______ Flashlight _______ One jacket per person _______ One transparent plastic ground cloth (6 feet by 4 feet) per person _______ 38 caliber loaded pistol _______ One 2-quart plastic canteen of water per person _______ Accurate map of the area _______ Large box of kitchen matches GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING: OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO ACHIEVE A GOAL Objective 2 Define and describe the elements of group problem solving. Group Communication Principles When solving problems as a group or a team, answer the question “What do we want more or less of?” Analyze the problem by identifying (1) the undesirable present, (2) the group’s goal, and (3) obstacles that may keep you from achieving the goal. Give all group members the opportunity to help formulate appropriate group goals. Even when the first proposed solution seems reasonable or workable, examine other alternatives. Effective problem solvers: Are vigilant thinkers; they appropriately analyze information and data. Identify criteria; they define standards so they’ll recognize a good solution when they see it. Generate creative ideas; they search for many high-quality solutions. Evaluate ideas and solutions; they examine the costs and benefits of solutions. Are sensitive to others; they are concerned both about the task and about the feelings of other group members. Interpret and evaluate the information you collect. Do not just accept the information at face value. Do not let yourself be satisfied after you generate a few potential solutions. Keep searching, unless the group needs a break. Key Term Problem solving 247 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Communication researchers Katherine Hawkins and Bryant Fillion surveyed personnel managers to find out what the managers considered the most important skills necessary for success in problem-solving groups and teams.79 Their results are reflected in the following scale. Rate each member of a group you are in on the following skills, using a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not at all effective; 2 = generally not effective; 3 = uncertain; 4 = effective; 5 = very effective). Skill Group Member Group Member Group Member Group Member Group Member 1. Listens effectively ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 2. Understands roles and responsibilities ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 3. Actively contributes to the group ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 4. Asks clear questions ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 5. Establishes and maintains rapport with others ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 6. Is sensitive to people with different cultural backgrounds ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 7. Uses clear, concise, accurate, and professional language ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 8. Communicates well with people who have different professional backgrounds ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 9. Gives clear and accurate instructions ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 10. Presents a positive professional image nonverbally (through appropriate grooming and attire) ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 11. Helps resolve conflicts ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 12. Accurately summarizes information to the group ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ 13. Gives brief, clear, well-organized, and informative presentations to the group when appropriate ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ Total ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ ________ _ THREE APPROACHES TO GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING Objective 3 Compare and contrast descriptive, functional, and prescriptive approaches to problem solving in small groups. Group Communication Principles Use a descriptive approach as a road map to help you determine where you are in the group problemsolving process. Adopt a functional approach to group problem solving by performing the functions of effective problem solvers. Adopt a prescriptive approach to problem solving if your group needs the structure that a problem-solving agenda provides. Do not be concerned if your group takes time to orient itself to the problem-solving process. Orientation is a normal part of group work. Expect some conflict and differences of opinion after a group clarifies its task and passes through the orientation phase of problem solving. Even though conflict may appear to impede a group’s efforts to solve a problem, expect a decision to emerge after a thorough discussion and analysis of the issues. Do not overlook the importance of the reinforcement phase of group problem solving. Group members need to feel a sense of accomplishment after making a decision. Take time to celebrate. Key Terms Descriptive approach 249 Functional approach 249 Prescriptive approach 249 Orientation phase 250 Primary tension 250 Secondary tension 251 Conflict phase 251 Emergence phase 251 Reinforcement 252 Dialectical theory 252 Breakpoint 254 Activity tracks 254 Task-process activities 254 Relational activities 254 Topical focus activities 255 Vigilant thinkers 257 Bona fide perspective on groups 258 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Description of Group Process Attend a meeting of your school board or city council or another public meeting in which problems are discussed and solutions are recommended. Prepare a written analysis of the meeting in which you attempt to identify phases in the group’s discussions. Also, try to identify examples of the three activity tracks discussed in this chapter (task process, relational, and topical focus). In addition, provide examples of breakpoints in the discussion of the group. CULTURAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING Objective 4 Identify how cultural assumptions influence group problem solving and decision making. Group Communication Principles Develop mindfulness: Become consciously aware of cultural differences. Be flexible: Be ready to adapt to the cultural expectations and traditions of others. Tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity: Be patient when working with those who have a cultural background different from your own. Avoid stereotyping and making negative judgments: Avoid an ethnocentric mind-set that assumes your cultural traditions are superior to those of others. Ask questions: Reduce your uncertainty by asking questions to help you and your team members develop common ground rules and norms. Be other-oriented: Cultivate the skill of empathy and seek to understand others before expressing your ideas and opinions to others. Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills 1. Identify specific messages you could tell yourself to help you develop mindfulness when communicating with someone from a culture different from your own culture. 2. What are reminder messages you could tell yourself to help you tolerate uncertain and be more comfortable with ambiguity when interacting with people from a culture different from your own culture.