Creative Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Skills Action Plan

CHAPTER OUTLINE An Overview of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies Finding a Balance between Group Structure and Interaction Reflective Thinking: The Traditional Approach to Group Problem Solving Question-Oriented Approaches to Problem Solving Beyond Technique OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, you will be able to: Describe the origins of the prescriptive approach to problem solving. Define and differentiate between group structure and group interaction. Use the steps and tools of reflective thinking to solve a problem in a small-group discussion. Apply the ideal-solution and single-question problemsolving methods to a group discussion. Determine which problem-solving approach is most suitable for a given group discussion. Whenever we present corporate communication training seminars for executives or business leaders on the topic of group or team problem solving, we begin our session by asking a simple question: What do you want to learn about group problem solving? The responses of the trainees are predictable. They want to know precisely what to do to make working in groups and teams more effective. They ask questions like “How do I develop an agenda when the group has a problem to solve?” “What are the best techniques to help a group arrive at the best solution?” “What should I do to ensure that my team operates at peak efficiency?” They want precise prescriptions for success. In the last chapter we introduced three approaches to understanding problem solving: descriptive, functional, and prescriptive. If you’re leading a group or are a member of a group, you could adopt a descriptive approach to problem solving and clue group members in to some of the processes and phases that groups experience when trying to solve problems. You could, in essence, give them a road map to help them understand how groups operate. Or you could hand out a list of the group functions—task requirements for groups—that we unveiled in Chapter 10: assess the problem, establish criteria, develop alternatives, and evaluate the pros and cons of the options identified, giving special attention to reviewing negative consequences of options you may consider. There’s a third approach—the prescriptive approach to problem solving. To prescribe is to offer specific and sometimes detailed do’s or don’ts to help a group perform well. However, as there is no single best way to solve problems in groups, no list of prescriptive problem-solving techniques always works. Each group is unique, as is each group member. Yet evidence indicates that guiding a group through a structured agenda can enhance its effectiveness.1 This chapter gives you several suggestions for solving problems in groups. We focus on the problem-solving task in this chapter and review prescriptions for enhancing creativity in the next chapter. An Overview of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies There are a vast number of specific strategies and techniques that can help you facilitate group problem solving.2 Most include references to five key elements: (1) identify and define the problem, (2) analyze the problem, (3) identify possible solutions, (4) select the best solution, and (5) implement the solution. These steps outline the primary way most scientists in any discipline go about finding answers to puzzling questions. We will examine the origin of these steps as well as why they continue to be used to structure group problem-solving discussion. The Origin of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies In 1910, philosopher and educator John Dewey, in his book How We Think, identified the steps most people follow to solve problems. According to Dewey, a reflective thinker considers these key questions.3 1. What is the “felt difficulty” or concern? 2. Where is it located, and how is it defined? 3. What are possible solutions to the felt difficulty? 4. What are logical reasons that support the solution? 5. What additional testing and observation need to be done to confirm the validity of the solution? These five steps should look familiar. They are very close to the five steps we just mentioned. Even though Dewey did not focus specifically on small groups, the steps he outlined, called reflective thinking—a series of logical, rational steps based on the scientific method of defining, analyzing, and solving a problem—have been used by many groups as a way to structure the problem-solving process. As new courses in group discussion were being designed in the 1920s and 1930s, teachers and authors adapted Dewey’s framework as a standard agenda that could be used to tackle any problem-solving group discussion. One of the first texts to adapt these steps explicitly was Alfred Dwight Sheffield’s brief book Creative Discussion: A Statement of Method for Leaders and Members of Discussion Groups and Conferences, first published in 1926.4 Soon other scholars began making similar references to this sequence, and, as you will see in the discussion that follows, it has become a standard agenda for structuring group problem solving.5 Finding a Balance between Group Structure and Interaction Communicating with others in small groups to solve a problem is often a messy and disorganized process.6 Even though some researchers have identified distinct phases in the course of a group’s deliberation (orientation, conflict, emergence, reinforcement), others find that group discussion often bounces from person to person and can be an inefficient, time-consuming process.7 And, as we discussed in Chapter 2, groups also develop fantasy themes that can trigger a chain of stories—some that are related to the group’s task and some that are not. Although these stories and group fantasies are important to a group’s identity, extended off-task “storytelling” can have a negative effect on the group’s productivity. To help group members manage the messiness of group discussion, a group needs a certain amount of structure to keep the discussion focused. Group structure consists of the agenda and other techniques and procedures to help a group stay focused on the task at hand. A group also needs the energy that comes from interaction. Interaction is simply the give-and-take conversation that occurs when people collaborate. We suggest that a group needs a balance of structure and interaction to be both efficient and effective. Groups Need Structure To counteract the messiness of group interaction, researchers investigating groups have suggested that an agenda be used to structure the discussion. The purpose of a group agenda is to help keep the discussion on track, not to stifle group interaction or consciousness raising. Robert Bales found that most task-oriented groups spend a little over 60 percent of their time talking about the task and almost 40 percent of their time talking about social, relational, or maintenance matters.8 An agenda ensures that the time spent talking about the task helps the group accomplish its goal. Researchers have found that groups and teams that have no planned structure or agenda have many more procedural problems.9 Here’s a summary of what researchers have found by observing “naturally occurring” or unhindered discussion, where there is little or no structure. 1. The group takes more time to deliberate; interaction is inefficient and often off task. 2. Group members prematurely focus on solutions rather than analyzing issues. 3. The group often jumps at the first solution mentioned. 4. Group members hop from one idea or proposal to the next without seeing the larger issues. 5. The group is more likely to be dominated by an outspoken group member. 6. Conflict is likely to go unmanaged.10 The conclusion to be drawn from this research: Groups and teams need help to keep them on track. Of all the various ways to organize or structure discussion, which method seems to be the best? Many sequences of techniques have not been tested empirically. Among those sequences that have been compared in controlled studies, no single method seems to work best all of the time. One powerful conclusion, however, emerges from the research: Any method of structuring group problem solving is better than no method at all.11 Groups need structure because members have relatively short attention spans and because uncertainty results both from the relationships among group members and from the group’s definition of the task. In separate studies, researchers found that groups shift topics about once a minute.12 As noted in the last chapter, Poole argues that group members consider task process, relational concerns, and topical shifts with varying degrees of attention. Thus, groups benefit from an agenda that keeps the discussion focused on their task. And one research study found that some members need more structure than others. Group members who have a preference for using more rigid procedures arrived at higher-quality decisions than those using a less-structured approach to organizing their discussion.13 Another benefit of structuring conversation in a group is that group members are more likely to remember information during a more structured, focused discussion than a less focused, free-wheeling conversation.14 Having members first write information down and then share their information with the group increases the likelihood that they will remember what they share. Think of the various steps and tools in this chapter as a way to impose a common structure on a group’s deliberation. Without that structure, a group is more likely to wobble, waste time, and be less productive. Groups Need Interaction In addition to a structured agenda and procedures to help the group stay on task, groups need interaction—give-and-take conversation, talk, dialogue, and reaction to the messages of others. A group that has too much structure and not enough interaction is a group out of balance; participating in such a group would be like listening to someone give a speech rather than engaging in an interactive discussion. In trying to find the right balance between structure and interaction, researchers have found support for the following principles: High quality contributions early in the group’s deliberation improve group performance. The more individuals share their information with others early in the group’s discussion, the more group performance improves. If group members not only share but also understand the value and importance of individual contributions, then group performance improves.15 In order to achieve these principles, groups need facilitation to help balance structure and interaction so that all members participate. FIGURE 11.1 The Balance Between Structure and Interaction In this chapter we identify techniques that not only help your group stay on track (structure) but also facilitate group conversation about the topic at hand (interaction). Ideally, a group should have balanced participation to which all members contribute.16 A group member who talks too much can throw the group off balance. As Figure 11.1 suggests, the goal is to find the right balance between structure and interaction. Based on his effective decision-making theory, John Oetzel has found that groups that have more equal participation enjoy better-quality results; this research supports the assumption that groups need balanced interaction to achieve their goals.17 Interaction and collaborative group discussion has the advantage of facilitating cooperation in the group. One research team found that group members who first had a collaborative discussion about a decision, before making an individual decision about the issue, were more likely to make a decision that benefited the entire group.18 The very act of group interaction facilitates group cooperation. Some research studies suggest that groups that used networked computers to share information (a highly structured situation) generated lots of ideas but had difficulty reaching a decision.19 A less-structured, interactive, face-to-face situation was better for discussing alternatives and reaching a final decision. Many of the prescriptive agendas we discuss in this chapter incorporate the key communication functions of effective groups discussed in the last chapter. Reflective Thinking: The Traditional Approach to Group Problem Solving Some researchers and numerous group communication textbooks recommend reflective thinking (or one of its many variations) as the standard agenda for organizing or structuring group problem solving. However, many group communication theorists today believe that reflective thinking is more useful as a description of the way some people solve problems than as an ideal pattern for all groups to solve problems. We describe the procedures and tools that can assist you and your groups in organizing the sometimes uncertain and fractious process of problem solving. The steps we present here are not intended to be a one-size-fits-all approach. They do, however, provide a logical, rational way of structuring group interaction.20 Step 1: Identify and Define the Problem Perhaps you have heard the saying “A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” A group first has to recognize that a problem exists. This may be the group’s biggest obstacle. The problem should be limited so that members know its scope and size. After members identify and limit the problem, they should define key terms in light of the problem under consideration so that they have a common understanding of the problem. For example, one student group recently decided to solve the problem of student apathy on campus. The students phrased their problem as a question: “What can be done to alleviate student apathy on campus?” They had identified a problem, but they soon discovered that they needed to decide what they meant by the word apathy. Does it mean poor attendance at football games? Does it mean a sparse showing at the recent fund-raising activity, “Hit Your Professor with a Pie”? After additional efforts to define the key word, they decided to limit their problem to low attendance at events sponsored by the student activities committee. With a clearer focus on their problem, they were ready to continue with the problem-solving process. Researchers have consistently found that groups develop better solutions to their problems if they take the time to analyze the issues before jumping in and listing possible solutions; groups and teams have a tendency, however, to leap to a solution before looking at and analyzing the issues.21 Consider the following questions when attempting to identify and define a problem for group deliberations: 1. What is the specific problem the group is concerned about? 2. What obstacles are keeping the group from its goal? 3. Is the question the group is trying to answer clear? 4. What terms, concepts, or ideas need to be defined? 5. Who is harmed by the problem? 6. When do the harmful effects of the problem occur? When trying to pin down precisely what the problem is, groups should remember the principles of systems theory that we discussed in Chapter 2. It’s often not a single factor that is the cause of a problem; systems theory suggests that there are often multiple sources of a problem. As team researchers Peter Scholtes, Brian Joiner, and Barbara Streible put it, “Once people recognize that systems create the majority of problems, they stop blaming individual employees. They instead ask which system needs improvement, and are more likely to seek out and find the true source of improvement.”22 Tools for Defining the Problem In addition to using the questions listed above to identify and define the problem, three techniques that provide even more structure—the is/is not analysis, the journalist’s six questions, Pareto charts, and SWOT—may be useful when your group needs “super” structure to clarify and define the problem. Is/Is Not Analysis The is/is not analysis technique is a way to ensure that a group is, in fact, investigating a problem and not just a symptom of the problem.23 Early in a group’s deliberation, group members consider such questions as “What is the area or object with the problem?” “What is not the area or object with the problem?” “Where does the problem occur?” “Where does the problem not occur?” The chart below includes other questions that can help give the group the structure it needs to clearly identify and define a problem. Group members can use the chart to focus on the specific problem under consideration. Members could first write down their answers and then share their responses one at a time. Having group members write before speaking is a way to help further structure their comments. Is Is Not What What is the area or object with the problem? What is not the area or object with the problem? Symptoms What are the symptoms of the problem? What are not the symptoms of the problem? When When is the problem observed? When is the problem not observed? Where Where does the problem occur? Where does the problem not occur? Who Who is affected by the problem? Who is not affected by the problem? For example, one group was attempting to investigate the declining standardized test scores in one elementary school in their community. They thought the problem they were trying to solve was inadequate teaching that resulted in lowered scores. But when the group used the is/is not technique to identify when and where the problem was and was not observed, they discovered that the low test scores occurred in only three classrooms, which were in the same wing of the building and all cooled by the same air-conditioning system. On further investigation, they realized that the air-conditioning units were not functioning, which meant that classrooms in that wing were uncomfortably hot—which in turn affected student performance on the examinations. The problem changed from trying to eliminate bad teaching to repairing the air-conditioning system. The is/is not technique is a way to identify and define the problem rather than the symptoms of the problem. COLLABORATING ETHICALLY: What Would You Do? You have been assigned to work with four other students on a semester-long project that counts for 30 percent of your course grade. All members of your group will share the same grade. One member of your group, Enrique, has two small children to support and, in addition to attending your university, holds down a full-time job at a convenience store. You like and admire Enrique. He’s a friendly person who is working hard to take care of his family. But he just isn’t following through on his share of the work for your group. Enrique has missed almost half of the meetings, yet he e-mails everyone now and then with information and statistics to try to do his part, but he has clearly contributed less to the group than the other group members. Toward the end of the semester his two-year-old becomes ill and Enrique has to spend even more time away from the group. Although your instructor in the course hasn’t asked for information about how well other group members followed through on their work assignments, you’re concerned that your entire group may get a lower grade due to Enrique’s failure to do his fair share of the work. Other group members say, “Oh, cut him some slack. He’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.” You’re the only group member who is upset about the imbalance of work. Would you tell your instructor about the lopsided workload, or just keep quiet? What would you do? Journalist’s Six Questions Most news reporters are taught to quickly identify the key facts when writing a news story or broadcasting a news event. The key elements of almost any newsworthy story can be captured by addressing a journalist’s six questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? Using these questions can help a group quickly structure how a problem is defined. Group members could be given a worksheet such as the one shown here and asked to answer these six questions before the group’s next meeting.24 The group could then pool the results and be well on the way to analyzing the problem. Or, the group could brainstorm answers to these questions while the group leader records the responses on a flip chart or chalkboard. Who What? When? Where? Why? How? Pareto Charts A Pareto chart is a bar graph that shows data that describe the cause, source, or frequency of a problem. The chart is arranged with the tallest bars on the left and the shortest bars on the right. A Pareto chart makes it easy to look at data and identify the source of the problem. The chart gets its name from the Pareto Principle. Perhaps you’ve heard it: The source of 80 percent of the problem comes from 20 percent of the incidents.25 Here are some examples: Eighty percent of the dirt on your carpet is on 20 percent of the carpet’s surface; 80 percent of the food you order comes from 20 percent of the menu; 80 percent of the conflict in a group is created by 20 percent of the group members. Most groups find that the primary source of the problem comes from only a few examples. When a group or team is struggling to figure out exactly what the problem is, a Pareto chart can help the group spot the issue easily. FIGURE 11.2 Pareto Chart: Causes of Errors on Financial Aid Statements Consider an example: One group was interested in why there were so many errors on financial aid statements at their university; students weren’t receiving their financial aid on time. They gathered data and found that 61 percent of the problem was caused by improperly completed financial-aid forms, 23 percent was related to errors in entering data into the computer, 4 percent of the mistakes were caused by the fact that students provided no phone number, and 3 percent arose because students did not provide their e-mail addresses. When the group displayed these data on a Pareto chart, as shown in Figure 11.2, they could easily see the main source of the problem—the forms weren’t being completed properly. SWOT Analysis SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. SWOT analysis is the technique used to help groups and teams identify and analyze big issues that influence the group or organization and can be helpful in both identifying and analyzing problems. How do you conduct a SWOT analysis? Working individually or collectively as a group, you brainstorm a list of each of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats of the group or organization, or use a template like the one in Figure 11.3. As illustrated in Figure 11.3, note that both strengths and weakness are internal factors of the group or organization—these are factors that exist within the group or organization. Opportunities and threats are those forces external to the group or organization that serve as either an outside positive factor (opportunity) or something that may jeopardize (threaten) a current positive action. With the SWOT identified, the next step is to rank order the information in each box: What is the greatest strength? What is our greatest weakness? What is our biggest opportunity? What is the most significant threat? FIGURE 11.3 Analyzing Organizational Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats: SWOT After identifying and ranking each of the four categories, the next step in the analysis is to consider the following questions: 1. How can we build on or maximize our strengths? 2. How can we overcome or reduce our weaknesses? 3. How can we take advantage of the opportunities? 4. How can we address the threats and potential threats? A SWOT analysis can be used to identify problems by noting weaknesses, or could be a useful technique to analyze a problem. Step 2: Analyze the Problem Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, was fond of saying that nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs. To analyze a problem is to break a problem into causes, effects, symptoms, and subproblems. During the analysis phase of group problem solving, members need to research and investigate the problem. In analyzing the problem, a group may wish to consider the following questions: 1. What is the history of the problem? How long has it existed? 2. How serious is the problem? 3. What are the causes of the problem? 4. What are the effects of the problem? 5. What are the symptoms of the problem? 6. What methods does the group already have for dealing with the problem? 7. What are the limitations of those methods? 8. How much freedom does the group have in gathering information and attempting to solve the problem? 9. What obstacles keep the group from achieving the goal? 10. Can the problem be divided into subproblems for definition and analysis? How a group analyzes information it gathers can make all the difference in how a group frames issues and, ultimately, solves problems. There’s the story about a shoe factory manager who sends two marketing executives to Africa to scout out the possibility of selling shoes there. The first executive sends a telegram back to the home office saying: Situation hopeless. No one wears shoes. The other marketing executive writes excitedly: Glorious business opportunity. They have no shoes.26 Both executives had the same information; they simply analyzed the situation differently. Tools for Analyzing a Problem Groups may need help in breaking a problem down into its subcomponents. Two techniques can help a group sort out factors contributing to the problem: (1) force-field analysis and (2) cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagram. Each technique can help a group focus on data and facts rather than on vague impressions of what may be causing the problem. Force-Field Analysis This technique is based on the assumptions of Kurt Lewin, often called the father of group dynamics.27 To use force-field analysis, a group needs to have a clear statement of its goal, which can be stated in terms of what the group wants more of or less of (for example, “We need more money, more time, or less interference from others”). The group analyzes the goal by noting what driving forces make it likely to be achieved and what restraining forces make it unlikely to be achieved. Follow these steps to complete a force-field-analysis chart such as the one in Figure 11.4.28 Step 1. Identify the goal, objective, or target the group is trying to achieve (such as more money, fewer errors). Step 2. On the right side of the chart, list all the restraining forces—those that currently keep the group from achieving its goal. Step 3. On the left side of the chart, list all the driving forces—those that currently help the group achieve its goal. Step 4. The group can now decide whether to do one of three things: (a) increase the driving forces; (b) decrease the restraining forces; (c) increase selected driving forces and decrease those restraining forces over which the group has control. FIGURE 11.4 Force-Field Analysis Chart Source: Julius E. Eitington, The Winning Trainer (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1989). Used with permission. All rights reserved. After the group has sorted through the facts and identified the driving and restraining forces, it will more likely be able to focus on the essential causes of a problem rather than on the problem’s symptoms. Say, for example, you are working in a group whose goal is to increase teamwork and collaboration among faculty and students. Driving forces—forces that favor teamwork—include such factors as faculty members who are motivated to work with students, students who also want to work with faculty, an existing training program that teaches teamwork and collaboration skills to both students and faculty. These and other driving forces could be included on the left-hand side of the force-field chart. Restraining forces—forces that work against increased collaboration—include current lack of knowledge of teamwork principles, the negative attitudes of a small but vocal group of faculty members who want to use more individual approaches to education, and the lack of a tradition of collaboration. These obstacles would be listed on the right side of the chart. Ideally, the group should work together on the force-field analysis diagram by using a flip chart or projecting the chart using an overhead projector. After generating additional driving and restraining forces, the group then turns its attention to the question “What can be done to increase the driving forces and decrease the restraining forces?” The group’s force-field analysis of the problem can provide new insights for overcoming the obstacles and achieving the goal. Cause-and-Effect (Fishbone) Diagram Another problem analysis tool often used in groups and teams is the cause-and-effect diagram, also often called a fishbone diagram because the completed diagram looks like the skeleton of a fish. Developed by Kaoru Ishikawa, a Japanese specialist in quality management, this diagram helps groups and teams visually examine the relationship between causes and their probable effects.29 To develop a cause-and-effect diagram, first think of the possible effect you want to analyze. For example, imagine your group is trying to identify possible causes in the drop in students’ standardized test scores in your community high school. The drop in test scores is the effect, but you aren’t sure what’s causing the drop. To prepare a cause-and-effect diagram, draw a long horizontal line on a piece of paper, chalkboard, or flipchart. Then, angling out from the long line, draw lines to represent possible causes of the drop in scores. Here you must use your analytical skills. For example, as illustrated in Figure 11.5, the major causes could be that the test-administration instructions are unclear; that parents are not involved; that teachers may not have time to prepare students for the test; or that students may have too many competing activities. Then, on each of the four angled lines, list possible contributing factors for each of the four main problem causes. For example, on the line suggesting that students have competing activities, you could draw lines to specify those competing activities. If you’re stumped for a way to get started analyzing the problem, Ishikawa suggested that almost all problems boil down to issues related to the “four M’s”: Manpower (people), Machines, Materials, and Methods. You could begin your analysis by drawing a line angling off the horizontal line to represent each of these four categories. The advantage of the cause-and-effect diagram is that all group members can work together to show relationships between causes and effects. For groups and teams to collaborate, they need a common format that helps them collaborate. A cause-and-effect diagram creates that shared space in which to work. You don’t need to make your diagram complicated; you don’t always need four lines angling off the center line. Often, simpler is better. The key is to write down the potential causes so all group or team members can see the relationships among possible causes and the known effect. As suggested by management consultant Peter Scholtes, “One of the biggest challenges in creating a cause-and-effect diagram is to have the bones show cause-and-effect relationships.”30 He cautions that cause-and-effect diagrams only depict potential causes. Once you have a list of potential causes, your group will need to verify the relationship between the cause and the effect with data and evidence. FIGURE 11.5 Cause-and-Effect (Fishbone) Diagram PROMOD Technique Erich Witte developed and tested a way of structuring interaction in a group to ensure that the problem is effectively analyzed and that information gleaned from the analysis is shared with the entire group.31 PROMOD is designed to make sure group members have an opportunity to first individually analyze the problem or issue under consideration and then systematically share that analysis with other group members. Results from his research studies have concluded that by first individually structuring the analysis of the problem and development of solutions, and then sharing the information with the entire group, groups develop a better, high quality solution than if the group had not used the PROMOD Technique. Witte suggests that group members first individually read a summary of the problem that also includes a digest of all the information and data known about the issue. Having the problem summarized in writing ensures that all group members are aware of the problem and have a common information base on which to base their analysis. The facilitation of the discussion is organized around four key steps that alternate between individual analysis and group sharing: (1) problem analysis (individual analysis), (2) information exchange (share analysis with the group), (3) problem resolution (individually identify a solution), and (4) group integration to reach consensus (work collaboratively to pool ideas and analysis to develop the best solution). Here’s a brief step-by-step summary of the PROMOD Technique. Step 1: Individual Problem Analysis Group members individually read the information and underline, mark, or highlight important information found in the written summary of the problem. Group members individually identify possible strategies that would influence the problem, as well as analyze problems and risks for the alternative strategies. Group members individually identify possible decisions/solutions to manage the issue or problem. Group members individually rank the decisions/solutions from best to worse. Step 2: Group Information Exchange Group members share written information and analysis among all group members. Group members then review their analysis with other group members. Collaboratively, group members compare the rankings of how the issue could be managed. Step 3: Individual Problem Resolution Individually, group members revise their individual analysis and ranking of decisions. Group members privately make a final decision. Group members individually re-rank their list of solutions. Step 4: Collaborative Group Integration Group members collaboratively share their revised decisions. Group members discuss the results and seek a consensus on the outcome. Group members make a decision either by consensus, majority vote, or group ranking to reach a final decision. The essence of PROMOD Technique is to alternate individual analysis of the problem or issue with group sharing of the information. Writing down the analysis of the problem and then sharing that analysis assures that all group members’ ideas are considered. After a comprehensive analysis of the problem or issue, group members make an individual recommendation, and then the group collectively seeks to reach consensus. How to Establish Criteria Another task often part of the analysis step of the reflective-thinking process is to formulate criteria—standards or goals for an acceptable solution. Articulating criteria helps the group know when it has developed a good solution because the criteria spell out what the final outcome should look like. Here are some questions that can help your group develop criteria. 1. What outcome are we trying to accomplish? 2. How will we know when we have completed our task? 3. Which criteria or standards are most important? 4. Which criteria are less important? For example, criteria for a solution might include the following: 1. The solution should be inexpensive. 2. The solution should be implemented by a certain date and time. 3. The solution should address the causes of the problem, not just the symptoms. 4. All group members should agree to the solution. Although we describe the setting of criteria as integral to analyzing the problem, the research literature is mixed as to when a group should explicitly identify criteria. One study found that the precise point during the problem-solving process when criteria were discussed did not seem to make a difference in the group’s final outcome.33 In fact, group members thought it made more sense to them to discuss criteria after they had identified several possible solutions. Consider this principle: The more uncertain group members are about the goal of the discussion, the more important it is to explicitly talk about criteria. If the goal is fairly obvious (for example, if a group is given the task of cutting 10 percent of a budget), then it’s probably not necessary to ask, “OK, what are we looking for in a solution?” Everyone already knows what the standard for the solution is. But if the goal is less clear-cut, it may be helpful to make sure that the group knows what the outcome of its discussion should be. As you learned in Chapter 1, one of the most important behaviors of an effective team is to develop a clear, elevating goal.34 Developing clear criteria is another way of ensuring that all group members know what the goal of the group is, so that group members know when they’ve identified a good solution. VIRTUAL GROUPS One of the ways a group can create structure is to do some of its work via e-mail. Rather than having people generate ideas face to face, assign group members some homework, to be submitted online. Or consider inviting group members to share their ideas for defining and analyzing problems via e-mail before meeting face to face. Here are some examples: If a group is attempting to define a problem, take time during a face-to-face meeting to teach the group how to conduct is/is not analysis. Then each group member should complete an is/is not analysis and submit the information to one individual via e-mail. The person to whom the information is sent can then cull out duplicated information and prepare a summary of the information that the group can discuss at its next meeting. According to research, virtual group members do a poorer job of sharing information than face-to-face groups. So where possible, save the virtual group interaction to help analyze and evaluate information rather than sharing information.32 At a face-to-face meeting, the group could begin a general discussion about the nature of the problem it is attempting to solve. Then group members can submit e-mail responses to the journalist’s six questions. One person can then collate and summarize the responses for the group to discuss. Conduct a force-field analysis via e-mail. After clarifying the group goal, assign some group members to identify the driving forces that would increase the likelihood of the goal’s being achieved. Others could submit a list of restraining forces. The information could be summarized and then discussed at the next meeting. Invite the group to do an analysis of the pros and cons of a particular solution via e-mail. But provide clear structure and directions as to precisely how group members should generate a list of pros and cons. Consider e-mailing each member a worksheet that includes specific directions for summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of a specific proposal. Step 3: Generate Several Possible Solutions After analyzing a problem and identifying criteria for a solution, the group should turn its attention to listing possible solutions in tentative, hypothetical terms. It’s important that the group not be tempted to start listing solutions too early in the discussion; better solutions occur when groups take time to thoroughly define and analyze the issues. Creativity is needed at each step of the problem-solving process, but it is especially important when the group attempts to develop solutions. Creativity is such an important part of group deliberations that we devote the next chapter to discussing the principles and practices of group creativity. Step 4: Evaluate Options and Select the Best Solution or Combination of Solutions After a group has compiled a list of possible solutions to a problem, it should be ready to evaluate the various possible solutions and then select the best one. How do you narrow down a long list of proposed solutions? One way is to refer to the criteria proposed during the analysis stage of the discussion (or to take time now to develop criteria) and consider each tentative solution in light of these criteria. The group should decide which proposed solution or combination of solutions best meets its criteria. Narrowing a list of possible solutions down to one or two options is usually much harder for groups than generating options in the first place. Our discussion of how to facilitate consensus, presented in Chapter 8, offers several strategies for narrowing the number of options. The following questions may be helpful in analyzing the proposed solutions: 1. What are the advantages of each solution? 2. Are there any disadvantages to a solution? Do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? 3. What would be the long-term and short-term effects of this solution if it were adopted? 4. Would the solution really solve the problem? 5. Does the solution conform to the criteria formulated by the group? 6. Should the group modify the criteria? If group members agree, the criteria for a best solution may need to be changed or modified.35 © 8-26-01 2001 Scott Adams, Inc./Dist. By UFS, Inc. Tools for Evaluating the Solutions In addition to asking questions to guide discussion of the solutions or alternatives that the group has identified, the following are additional ways of focusing or structuring discussion.36 Analyze the pros and cons One of the most consistent findings of functional communication researchers is that when groups weigh the positive and negative outcomes of solutions, they make better decisions.37 One method of facilitating such a discussion is to make a T-charts (named for its shape), like the one here, to evaluate solution pros and cons. If the group is large and you want to make sure everyone participates, you can have members first write their own lists of pros and cons (or risks and benefits) and then share their responses with the group. For example, if a group is trying to decide whether to purchase a new piece of property, one side of the center line might list positive aspects of the purchase (good investment, property values increasing, good location, and so on). On the other side would be negative implications of the purchase (reduced cash flow, increased property taxes, expensive lawyer fees, and so on). A thorough look at pros and cons can help a group consider alternatives before it makes a final decision. Evidence suggests that groups often find more positive benefits than negative implications when evaluating the pros and cons.38 So make sure the group identifies both positive and negative outcomes when reviewing various options. Average Rankings and Ratings It is usually easier for a group to identify possible solutions than it is to narrow the list of alternatives and select the best solution. If a group has many solutions to evaluate, one way to narrow the list is to ask group members to either rank or rate the solutions and then average the rankings or ratings to see which solutions emerge as the most and least popular. Ranking or rating should be done after a group has discussed the pros and cons of the solutions. Ranking solutions works best if you have no more than five to seven solutions; group members often have a difficult time ranking more than seven items. If you have a very long list of solutions—a dozen or more—you may ask the group members to rank their top five choices, assigning a rank of 1 to their top choice, 2 to their next choice, and so on. One researcher has found that asking the group to rank-order a list of possible alternatives is a better procedure than asking the group to pick the best solution. By ranking each option, group members are forced to critically evaluate each alternative.39 Besides ranking solutions, group members could also assign a rating score to each solution. Each solution could be rated on a five-point scale, with a rating of 1 being a very positive evaluation and 5 being a negative evaluation. Even a long list of 20 or more potential solutions could be rated. Group members’ ratings for each solution could be averaged, and the most highly rated solutions could be discussed again by the entire group. Step 5: Test and Implement the Solution Group members should be confident that the proposed solution is valid—that it will solve the problem. A classic way to make sure the solution works is to develop a prototype of the solution. A prototype is a smaller version of the solution your team has developed, so you can test it before implementing the solution on a wide scale. For example, if your group has decided to design a new Web site for your organization to help promote events and communicate new policies, before making the Web site available to everyone, you should develop a sample or prototype Web page to see how it looks. You could then test it with a small group of people to see if the site is clear and does what you want it to do. When Thomas Edison and his team of researchers were developing the light bulb, they famously developed a prototype light bulb to test it before deciding “This is it!” and announcing their discovery to the world.40 If your group is developing a new procedure or process, you could plan a pilot program to test your process before implementing it. A pilot program allows testing the solution on a limited basis, or testing on a small sample of people, before making a final decision. Software designers often first release what they call a beta version (test version) of the software before fully releasing it for widespread distribution. After a group selects the best solution, it must determine how the solution can be put into effect. You may wish to consider the following questions: 1. How can the group get approval and support for its proposed solution? 2. What specific steps are necessary to implement the solution? 3. How can the group evaluate the success of its problem-solving efforts? In many groups, those who choose a solution are not the same people who will implement it. If this is the case, members who select the solution should clearly explain why they selected it to members who will put the solution into practice. If they can demonstrate that the group went through an orderly process to solve the problem, they usually can convince others that their solution is valid. Tools for Implementing a Solution There are two key tools for implementing a solution: (1) an action chart and (2) a flowchart. An action chart is a grid that lists the tasks that need to be done and identifies who will be responsible for each task. Such a chart is based on more elaborate diagrams and procedures, such as a PERT diagram. PERT (the initials stand for Program Evaluation and Review Technique) was originally developed by the U.S. Navy in the late 1950s to assist with the Polaris missile program.41 The action chart here was developed by using the following steps: 1. Identify the project goal. 2. Identify the activities needed to complete the project. 3. Identify the sequence of activities (what should be done first, second, third, and so on). 4. Estimate the amount of time it should take to complete each task. 5. Determine which group members should be responsible for each task. 6. Develop a chart that shows the relationships among the tasks, times, people, and sequence of events that are needed to accomplish the project. Names Ken • • • • • Daryl • • Steve • • Janice • • • Carl • • • • Assignment Conduct needs assessment Write behavioral objectives Develop training content outline Write training facilitator guide Develop audio-visual resources Conduct training pilot test Conduct training for client Analyze evaluation data Week Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Day Monday Friday Monday Friday Monday Friday Monday Friday One reason solutions are not implemented is that people are uncertain about who should do what. An action chart provides needed structure to reduce this uncertainty. An action chart also helps ensure that everybody is aware of what needs to be done and reduces the risk that nobody will do anything. FIGURE 11.6 Flowchart of Group Decisions on Fund-Raising Activity A flowchart is a step-by-step diagram of a multistep process. Consider an example: One group was charged with choosing and carrying out a fund-raising activity. The chart in Figure 11.6 shows how the group described the essential steps involved holding a fund-raiser. Flowcharts can help a group see whether the various procedures they have identified to solve a problem are practical and fit together. A flowchart can also help your group work through logistics and identify practical problems of moving from an idea’s conception to its implementation. Like an action plan, a flowchart is a way to give structure to group thought. Flowcharts can be simple, like our example, or very complex, like those used by computer programmers when writing sophisticated programs. How detailed does a flowchart need to be? The level of detail depends on the needs of the group. We caution you, however, not to make the flowchart so detailed that your goal becomes developing a flowchart rather than describing and implementing a process. Use a flowchart as a tool to make sure all group members have a clear understanding of the critical parts of a more complex process. How to Use Reflective Thinking in Your Group or Team Reflective thinking assumes that groups work best when their discussions are organized rather than disorganized or random. Remember that you should use reflective thinking as a guide, not as an exact formula for solving every problem. As noted earlier, several group communication researchers have discovered that groups do not necessarily solve problems in a linear, step-by-step process.42 The process by which groups solve problems goes through several phases of growth and development as members interact.43 Reflective thinking is most useful in helping groups understand the phases of problem solving. As Ernest Bormann has noted, “Difficulties arise when [group] participants demand rationality from a group throughout its deliberations.”44 In trying to apply reflective thinking to group problem solving, consider the following suggestions. 1. Take time to reflect on the procedures the group is using and how group members are interacting. To reflect is to consciously consider precisely how the group and individual group members are talking with one another.45 Is the group following a structured plan? Are group members first analyzing the problem before generating solutions? Is the group aware of how it’s communicating? Research supports the process of having at least one group member reflect and verbalize how the group is doing in following procedures and communicating effectively.46 Groups that don’t have someone helping them reflect perform less effectively. Reflecting helps both face-to-face and electronically mediated groups. 2. Clearly identify the problem you are trying to solve. Make sure that you are not just discussing a topic. For example, one group decides to discuss the quality of the U.S. judicial system. The group selects a topic area, but it does not identify a problem. It should focus clearly on a specific problem, such as “How can we improve the quality of the judicial system in the United States?” or “What should be done to improve the education and training of lawyers in the United States?” 3. Phrase the problem as a question to help guide group discussion. Stating your group’s problem as a question adds focus and direction to your deliberations. When formulating a problem-solving discussion question, keep in mind the guidelines discussed in Chapter 4. 4. Do not suggest solutions until you have analyzed the problem. Many group communication researchers agree that until your group has researched the problem, you may not have enough information and specific facts to reach the best solution.47 5. In the definition and analysis steps of reflective thinking, do not confuse the causes of the problem with its symptoms. A fever and headache are symptoms, not necessarily causes, of a patient’s ill health. The cause may be a cold or flu virus or a number of other things. A doctor tries to identify the cause of symptoms by running tests and analyzing a patient’s medical history. In other words, a doctor needs to define, analyze, and solve a problem. You should try to clarify the differences between the causes and the symptoms (effects) of a problem. Perhaps your only goal is to alleviate the symptoms. However, you can better understand your group’s goal if you can distinguish causes and symptoms. 6. Constantly evaluate your group’s problem-solving method. For many years the only problem-solving method suggested to group-discussion classes was reflective thinking. Some communication theorists suggest, however, that for certain types of problems, alternative problem-solving methods work just as well, if not better, than reflective thinking. The final part of this chapter discusses some of these other problem-solving strategies. 7. Appoint one or more group members to remind the group to use a structured method of solving problems. One study found that groups in which one member is trained to help the group be mindful of the procedures it uses will make high-quality decisions.48 Raters were trained to remind the group to use effective problem-solving and decision-making skills by asking the following questions at appropriate times: Do we have enough evidence to support our choice of solution? Have we looked at a sufficient number of alternatives? Have we reexamined alternatives we rejected previously? Have we avoided stereotypical thinking or premature judgments? Because you’re taking a course in small group communication, you now know the importance of helping a group stay on track and be vigilant thinkers, so you can periodically ask these questions. Even if you’re not the appointed leader of a group, you can have a positive impact on the quality of the group’s discussion by helping the group examine its process. Question-Oriented Approaches to Problem Solving Another approach to problem solving requires groups to consider a series of questions to keep them oriented toward their goal. Two such approaches are discussed in the following sections: (1) the ideal-solution format and (2) the single-question format. Both formats help groups identify the critical issues they need to resolve and organize their thinking about the best possible solutions. Ideal-Solution Format Obviously, problem-solving groups want to identify the best solutions to problems. In the ideal-solution format, groups answer questions designed to help them identify ideal solutions. Alvin Goldberg and Carl Larson have devised the following agenda of questions: 1. Do all members agree on the nature of the problem? 2. What would be the ideal solution from the point of view of all parties involved in the problem? 3. What conditions within the problem could be changed so that the ideal solution might be achieved? 4. Of the solutions available, which one best approximates the ideal solution?49 These questions help groups recognize the barriers that the problems under consideration have created. The questions also encourage groups to analyze a problem’s cause and to evaluate proposed solutions. The advantage of the ideal-solution format over other problem-solving approaches is its simplicity. Group members simply consider each of the above questions one at a time. One expert recommends the ideal-solution format for discussions among people with varied interests; this format works best when acceptance of a solution is important.50 The format enables group members to see the problem from several viewpoints in their search for the best solution. Although the ideal-solution format is similar to reflective thinking, its chief value is that it uses questions to help a group systematically identify and analyze a problem, pinpoint the best possible solution, and formulate specific methods for achieving a solution. Like the other problem-solving formats presented in this chapter, it helps a group—particularly one whose members have varying viewpoints and experiences—to focus on a problem and devise ways to solve it in a rational, structured way. Single-Question Format Like the ideal-solution format, the single-question format poses a series of questions designed to guide the group toward a best solution. Goldberg and Larson suggest that the answers to the following five questions can help a group achieve its goal: 1. What question does the group need to answer in order to accomplish its purpose? 2. What subquestions must be answered before the group can answer the single question it has formulated? 3. Does the group have sufficient information to answer the subquestions confidently? 4. What are the most reasonable answers to the subquestions? 5. Assuming that the answers to the subquestions are correct, what is the best solution to the problem?51 Unlike the ideal-solution format, the single-question format requires a group to formulate a question to help obtain the information needed to solve a problem. The single-question format also helps a group identify and resolve issues that must be confronted before it can reach a solution. As Goldberg and Larson note, “An assumption of the single-question form seems to be that issues must be resolved, however tentatively.”52 Thus, the single-question format probably works best for a group that is capable of reaching agreement on what the issues are and how they can be resolved. A group characterized by conflict and contention would probably not find the single-question approach productive. The success of the single-question format depends on a group’s agreeing on the subissues before trying to agree on the major issues. If you are working with a group that has difficulty reaching agreement, the single-question format may not be the best approach. The group may become bogged down arguing about trivial matters while the major issues remain unexamined. Decide whether your group will be able to reach agreement on the minor issues before you decide to use the single-question format. If your group cannot reach agreement, either the ideal-solution format or the reflective-thinking format may be a better method of organizing your group’s deliberations. How to Use Question-Oriented Approaches in Your Group or Team You may have noticed some similarities among the single-question, the ideal-solution, and the reflective-thinking formats. By guiding groups toward their goals with questions, the ideal-solution and single-question formats help groups agree on minor issues before they try to agree on solutions to problems. Carl Larson tried to find out whether an ideal-solution, single-question, or reflective-thinking format, or no format at all, would produce better solutions.53 His study indicates that ideal-solution and single-question formats generated better solutions than did the reflective-thinking approach. All three approaches fared better than no approach at all. Recording group members’ ideas on a flip chart can help provide necessary structure when the group is trying to solve problems. What other equipment might help solve group problems? Of course, a single study does not prove that the single-question and ideal-solution formats are superior to the reflective-thinking format, but it does suggest that under certain conditions, goal-oriented approaches may have certain advantages. In Larson’s study, when groups were given alternatives and told to choose the best solution to a problem, their discussions lasted only about twenty minutes. That is, by considering specific questions, members were able to solve problems efficiently. Norman Maier also concluded that a problem-solving approach that has a group consider minor issues before major issues can improve group decisions.54 If you are going to lead a group discussion, the following suggestions may help you apply the ideal-solution and single-question approaches to problem solving: 1. When using the ideal-solution or single-question approach, provide group members with copies of the questions that will guide their discussion. You can reduce some of the uncertainty that occurs normally in groups by making sure that each person knows the procedure. Tell the group to use the questions as a guide. 2. Explain why you are using the format you have selected. Most groups are willing to go along with a particular discussion agenda, especially if you give them reasons for having selected it. Tell the group that considering specific questions in a developmental format can keep the discussion on track. If your group has a specified time period in which to meet, you can explain that using questions to guide the discussion can help make the discussion more efficient. 3. Keep the discussion focused on the specific question under consideration. Whether the group is using the ideal-solution or single-question format, some group members may be tempted to skip a question or may want to discuss an unrelated issue. You may have to help the group focus on one question at a time. Several studies suggest that groups with members who try to keep participants aware of the pertinent issues by summarizing the discussion and requesting clarification have a good chance of agreeing on a solution and of being satisfied with their discussion.55 4. Agree to use a collaborative approach to solving the problem. Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson suggest that the single-question format can be enhanced if group members explicitly consider the question “What principles should we agree on in order to maintain a reasonable and collaborative approach through the [problem-solving] process?”56 Consider this question early in the problem-solving process. Making collaboration a problem-solving value can enhance teamwork and cooperation. PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE: When Should You Make a Decision Based on Careful Analysis and When Should You Trust Your “Gut Instincts”? In this chapter we’ve presented several structured group problem-solving methods that provide step-by-step techniques for developing criteria and analyzing information when making decisions? But are there times when you should rely more on your intuition rather than on detailed analysis of data? Research by Erik Dane, Kevin Rockmann, and Michael Pratt suggests that in some instances, you can have better results if you rely on your “gut instincts” rather than your head to make decisions and solve problems.57 These researchers had people evaluate how effectively a basketball player played basketball. In one condition the subjects were told to just rely on their intuition and first impression; in another condition subjects developed and used an elaborate method of establishing criteria and then analyzing each basketball shot. They were told not to rely on their intuition. The researchers also wanted to know if the subjects’ ability and experience in playing basketball was a factor in determining whether intuition or detailed analysis made a difference in how well they could evaluate the basketball players. What they found out was that subjects that had a lot of basketball experience and skill more accurately assessed the quality of the basketball play when relying on intuition rather than when using a detailed system of developing criteria and then carefully analyzing data. Real-Life Applications What are the implications of these findings as well as other research about intuition when making decisions and solving problems in small groups?58 Relying on your intuition can be more effective if the task is to make an overall judgment or impression of quality. Carefully establishing criteria and using a detailed method of analysis is more effective if your group is solving a complex, highly structured problem. Don’t ignore your “gut instincts” and intuition, especially if you are an expert or have considerable experience. If you and other group members have limited experience or expertise, then it’s best to use a more structured technique that emphasizes a careful analysis of data and information. Beyond Technique Throughout this book we’ve offered skills, strategies, tips, and techniques for improving group process. We conclude this chapter with a caution: Participating in groups and teams is more than simply applying “how to’s.” As we’ve repeatedly noted, communicating in groups and teams is often a zipping, buzzing, humming, halting, and cacophonous process. Systems theory, discussed in Chapter 2, teaches that group communication is an interrelated, fragile process in which each person or element affects the entire group. Group and team research has not advanced to a state where we can certify that using the various techniques we’ve discussed will always result in high-quality solutions and decisions. Working in a group is more complicated than that.59 How do you know when to adopt a specific technique to help improve a group’s process? The key, we believe, is to listen to your group, watch, observe, and identify what the group needs at a given time. In a word: adapt. Adapt to the needs of the group rather than assuming that a predetermined strategy or technique will somehow miraculously help the group or team achieve a breakthrough. If the group seems confused, disoriented, or stuck when defining or analyzing the task in front of it, then a more structured technique such as the cause-and-effect diagram or force-field analysis may be what the group needs. But if the group is making progress, we don’t recommend that you haul out a group technique such as is/is not analysis, a fishbone diagram, a T-chart, or some other structured technique. The power of a group does not reside in technique. In fact, group researchers have had some difficulty documenting precisely what makes a group successful—and we don’t believe groups will always be successful. There is no one approach or technique that always works. CASE STUDY: WHO LOSES THEIR JOB: Practice in Applying Principles You are one of the managers of a department store in your community. You have just been informed by your supervisor that one of your employees will have to be laid off because of company cutbacks. You meet with your managerial colleagues to decide which employee will be chosen. All employees are full-time, and all work the same number of hours. There is one formal rule you have to follow: The reason for laying a person off must be job-related. Which of the following employees would you and your colleagues choose? Make the best decision you can with the limited information you are given. Be prepared to discuss the reasoning behind your group’s decision.60 Masha. Aged 33, married, with two children, Masha has worked for the company for five years. She loves her job and requires little or no supervision. You have considered giving her a promotion when the opportunity arises. Other people go to Masha when they have questions because she is good at training others. She has been going to school part time to get a management degree and will graduate in another year. Bob. Aged 49, divorced, with one child, Bob has worked with the company for 22 years. He keeps to himself but always gets work done. You never have to give Bob instructions because he knows his job so well. Others in the department call him “Pop” because he seems like a father figure to everyone and is well liked. He really adds a great deal of stability to your department. He does not want to change his job at all because he is happy. You put Bob in charge in your absence. Trent. Aged 19, single, a Native American, Trent just began working for your company 11 months ago. He went to an accelerated school as a child and started college when he was 15 years old. He has since graduated with a business degree and shows promise of going far in your company. He is already the best salesperson in your department. Most people get along with him well. Because he is new, Trent needs a lot of training, but his sales are worth your extra time. Madeline. Madeline is 25, married, and three months pregnant. She transferred to your store only last month but has over three years total experience in the company. You have not been very satisfied with her attendance because she is calling in sick a lot. However, she is the only person that you feel you can give your most difficult tasks to because she is very thorough. She also has had more customer compliments than any other person in your department. Catrina. Catrina is 40, single, has three children, and is a recovering alcoholic. She fulfills a very necessary function in your department by doing maintenance work, which no one else really has time for. Catrina is efficient and is never late; however, she does not really associate with the others. She has worked with the company for over 10 years but she cannot read or write; it is likely that this is one of the few places she could find work. Antonio. Aged 27, single, with no children, Antonio has worked for two years in your department, and in that time he has won three awards for creating outstanding merchandise displays (the heart and soul of retail). He is your most conscientious worker and keeps your department looking great. You have wondered, though, whether he comes to work under the influence of drugs. Several customers have complained about poor grooming habits and language he uses. In the last month, however, he has made significant improvements. Questions for Analysis 1. What is the problem facing your group? 2. What criteria did your group use to help develop a solution? 3. How would you assess the balance between structure and interaction in your group? 4. Before making a decision, how did your group assess the advantages and disadvantages of each option? 5. Did your group use any specific problem-solving or decision-making technique to help structure the discussion? If not, which structured technique could you have used to create a balance between structure and interaction and produce a good solution? Use your knowledge of group problem-solving techniques in combination with your understanding of group process to assess whether your group needs the structure of a specific technique or tool. Effective groups and group members use techniques and strategies thoughtfully to help them make progress toward their goal depending on what is (or is not) happening in the group. Use techniques wisely. STUDY GUIDE: REVIEW, APPLY, AND ASSESS GROUP COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES AN OVERVIEW OF PRESCRIPTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES Objective 1 Describe the origins of the prescriptive approach to problem solving. Group Communication Principles In this chapter we discussed several prescriptive approaches that a group or team can use to solve a problem. In 1910 philosophy and educator John Dewey, in his book How We Think, identified the steps people use to solve problems. These original steps have evolved into what is often called the standard agenda of group problem solving. Key Terms Reflective thinking 271 Standard agenda 271 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills The first step in Dewey’s original steps of reflective thinking presented on page 271 includes identifying a “felt difficulty.” Think of several problems that you are experiencing in your life, or have experienced. What is the “felt difficulty” of those problems? Once you’ve identified the “felt difficulty,” phrase the difficulty as a problem statement. FINDING A BALANCE BETWEEN GROUP STRUCTURE AND INTERACTION Objective 2 Define and differentiate between group structure and group interaction. Group Communication Principles Groups with either too much structure (a rigid agenda or one person dominating the flow of discussion) or too much interaction (unstructured talk that does not focus on clear issues or topics) is a less productive group. Achieving an appropriate balance between structure and interaction is a central goal of effective group discussion. Key Terms Structure 272 Interaction 272 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Using Interaction Process Analysis Sociologist Robert Bales significantly advanced the study of communication in small groups by developing a method of describing and analyzing the interaction that occurs in groups. Bales identified four major categories of interaction and further specified 12 subcategories of comments group members typically make during group discussion. Two of Bales’s major categories focus on social/emotional aspects of group conversation; the other two categories describe talk that focuses on completing the task. His categories are listed below.61 Positive Reactions 1. Shows solidarity, raises others’ status, gives help, rewards 2. Shows tension release, jokes, laughs, shows satisfaction 3. Shows agreement, shows passive acceptance, understands, concurs, complies Attempted Answers 4. Gives suggestion, direction, implying autonomy for others 5. Gives opinion, evaluation, analysis, expresses feeling, wish 6. Gives information, orientation, repeats, clarifies, confirms Questions 7. Asks for information, orientation, repetition, confirmation 8. Asks for opinion, evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling 9. Asks for suggestions, direction, possible ways of action Negative Reactions 10. Disagrees, shows passive rejection, formality, withholds help 11. Shows tension, asks for help, withdraws out of field 12. Shows antagonism, deflates others’ status, defends or asserts self Although it takes extensive training to gain maximum benefit from Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis, communication researchers and educators Alvin Goldberg and Carl Larson suggest that you can develop a simple version of Bales’s categories to describe group interaction.62 On the left side of a sheet of paper, list the 12 subcategories of comments. Next, draw vertical lines to create a column for each group member. As you listen to a group discussion, simply make a mark to code each piece of conversation made by each group member. If, for example, Bill makes a comment that indicates friendly support for a person or an idea, you would make a mark in Bill’s column on line 1 for “shows solidarity.” If Carmelita disagrees with Bill’s idea, you would make a mark in her column on line 10 (“disagrees”). You continue to code the group members’ comments until the end of the conversation. The key to using this method of analyzing group talk is to make sure you understand each of the 12 subcategories of interaction and can code them accurately. Each comment can be coded only once in only one category, so you have to make quick decisions as to how to code a group member’s comments. When you’re finished, you can total the number of marks you’ve made for each person. With total numbers in hand, you can calculate the percentage of the time each individual made comments. You can also total the number of types of comments the group members made by adding the number of marks made on each row. Calculate the percentage of time group members made comments from each subcategory. The resulting percentage for each of the 12 lines will let you see whether the group was more concerned with the task or more concerned with social/emotional issues. You can also see which of the 12 interaction categories was used most and least during the discussion. You can more accurately assess people’s comments if you videotape a group discussion and then watch the video while completing your analysis of the group; if necessary you can watch the video more than once. Group communication scholar Joann Keyton points out that the Bales Interaction Process Analysis system is an efficient way to analyze a group’s behavior because it offers a descriptive, quantitative measure based on what group members say.63 REFLECTIVE THINKING: THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING Objective 3 Use the steps and tools of reflective thinking to solve a problem in a small-group discussion. Group Communication Principles To help your group or team define and limit a problem, phrase it as a question. Do not start suggesting solutions until your group has thoroughly analyzed a problem. Consider using tools such as is/is not analysis, force-field analysis, journalist’s six questions, Pareto charts, and cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagrams to help your group analyze the problem. Formulate criteria for a good solution before you begin suggesting solutions. If the other group members agree, you may need to change the criteria you have selected during the analysis phase of reflective thinking. Make sure that reflective thinking is the best method for your group; another problem-solving approach may work better. To help make sure that everyone knows and follows through on his or her assignment, consider using an action chart or a flowchart. Key Terms Is/is not analysis 275 Journalist’s six questions 276 Pareto principle 276 SWOT analysis 277 Force-field analysis 279 Cause-and-effect diagram 280 Fishbone diagram 280 Criteria 282 T-chart 285 Prototype 285 Action chart 286 Flowchart 287 Reflect 288 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Earthquake According to the Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook, there are certain things you should do if you experience an earthquake.64 Individually rank order the following suggestions from most important to least important. Then work with a small group to compare and revise your answers based on the collective wisdom of the group. Your instructor will give you the experts’ rankings. _______ If you are driving, stop, but carefully. _______ Check food and water supplies. _______ Check for gas leaks and damaged electrical wires. _______ Put on a pair of thick-soled shoes. _______ Be prepared for aftershocks. _______ If you are indoors, stay indoors. _______ Check for injuries and administer first aid. _______ Get out in the open if you are inside. _______ If you are in a mountainous area, watch out for landslides. QUESTION-ORIENTED APPROACHES TO PROBLEM SOLVING Objective 4 Apply the ideal-solution and single-question problem-solving methods to a group discussion. Group Communication Principles If you are the leader of a group, tell the group why you have selected either the ideal-solution format or the single-question approach to problem solving. Use the ideal-solution format to help the group come to agreement on the nature of the problem. Use the single-question format if you are sure that your group is capable of agreeing on the issues and on how they can be resolved. Provide members with copies of the questions used in the ideal-solution format or the single-question format; this will help to keep your discussion on track. Remind group members to address only those questions and issues that are relevant to the discussion. Key Terms Ideal-solution format 289 Single-question format 290 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills The Competent Group Communicator Assessment Form (Scoring instructions on page 300) Assessing Competencies of Problem-Solving Groups 65 Competencies are specific behaviors that group and team members perform (review Chapter 1, pages 1–35). The assessment form on pages 298–299 lists nine competencies organized into four general categories. Use the evaluation form to assess small-group communication competencies in a group or team discussion. Here’s how to use the form: 1. Observe a group or team that is attempting to solve a problem. Write the names of the group members at the top of the form. (If the group includes more than six group members, photocopy the form so that each group member can be evaluated.) 2. When using the form, first decide whether each group member has performed each competency. Circle NO if the group member was not observed performing the competency. Circle YES if you did observe the group member performing the competency (e.g., defining the problem, analyzing the problem, identifying criteria, and so on). 3. For each competency for which you circled YES, determine how effectively the competency was performed. Use the scale, which ranges from 0 to 3. 0 = This competency was performed, but it was performed inappropriately or inadequately. For example, the person observed tried to define a problem but did so poorly. 1 = Overall, performance of this competency was adequate. 2 = Overall, performance of this competency was good. 3 = Overall, performance of this competency was excellent. 4. Total the score for each group member in each of the four categories. If the competency was performed, the total number of points will range from 0 to 6 or 0 to 9. The higher the number of points, the better the individual performed on this competency. Problem-Oriented Competencies consist of items 1 and 2. These behaviors help the group or team member define and analyze the problem. Solution-Oriented Competencies include items 3, 4, and 5, with a point range from 0 to 9. These competencies focus on how well the team member helped develop and evaluate a solution to the problem. Discussion-Management Competencies, items 6 and 7, help the group or team remain focused or manage interaction. The points for this category range from 0 to 6. Relational Competencies are behaviors that focus on dealing with conflict and developing a positive, supportive group climate. Items 8 and 9 reflect this competency; points range from 0 to 6. 5. You can also assess the group’s or team’s ability to perform these competencies. The column marked “Group Assessment” can be used to record your overall impression of how effectively the group or team behaved. Circle NO if no one in the group performed a particular competency. Circle YES if at least one person in the group or team performed a competency. Then evaluate how well the entire group performed each competency, using the 0 to 3 scale. Sometimes it is difficult to make judgments about group competencies by just viewing a group discussion once. Many people find that it’s easier to videotape a group discussion so that you can observe the group discussion more than once.CHAPTER OUTLINE An Overview of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies Finding a Balance between Group Structure and Interaction Reflective Thinking: The Traditional Approach to Group Problem Solving Question-Oriented Approaches to Problem Solving Beyond Technique OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, you will be able to: Describe the origins of the prescriptive approach to problem solving. Define and differentiate between group structure and group interaction. Use the steps and tools of reflective thinking to solve a problem in a small-group discussion. Apply the ideal-solution and single-question problemsolving methods to a group discussion. Determine which problem-solving approach is most suitable for a given group discussion. Whenever we present corporate communication training seminars for executives or business leaders on the topic of group or team problem solving, we begin our session by asking a simple question: What do you want to learn about group problem solving? The responses of the trainees are predictable. They want to know precisely what to do to make working in groups and teams more effective. They ask questions like “How do I develop an agenda when the group has a problem to solve?” “What are the best techniques to help a group arrive at the best solution?” “What should I do to ensure that my team operates at peak efficiency?” They want precise prescriptions for success. In the last chapter we introduced three approaches to understanding problem solving: descriptive, functional, and prescriptive. If you’re leading a group or are a member of a group, you could adopt a descriptive approach to problem solving and clue group members in to some of the processes and phases that groups experience when trying to solve problems. You could, in essence, give them a road map to help them understand how groups operate. Or you could hand out a list of the group functions—task requirements for groups—that we unveiled in Chapter 10: assess the problem, establish criteria, develop alternatives, and evaluate the pros and cons of the options identified, giving special attention to reviewing negative consequences of options you may consider. There’s a third approach—the prescriptive approach to problem solving. To prescribe is to offer specific and sometimes detailed do’s or don’ts to help a group perform well. However, as there is no single best way to solve problems in groups, no list of prescriptive problem-solving techniques always works. Each group is unique, as is each group member. Yet evidence indicates that guiding a group through a structured agenda can enhance its effectiveness.1 This chapter gives you several suggestions for solving problems in groups. We focus on the problem-solving task in this chapter and review prescriptions for enhancing creativity in the next chapter. An Overview of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies There are a vast number of specific strategies and techniques that can help you facilitate group problem solving.2 Most include references to five key elements: (1) identify and define the problem, (2) analyze the problem, (3) identify possible solutions, (4) select the best solution, and (5) implement the solution. These steps outline the primary way most scientists in any discipline go about finding answers to puzzling questions. We will examine the origin of these steps as well as why they continue to be used to structure group problem-solving discussion. The Origin of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies In 1910, philosopher and educator John Dewey, in his book How We Think, identified the steps most people follow to solve problems. According to Dewey, a reflective thinker considers these key questions.3 1. What is the “felt difficulty” or concern? 2. Where is it located, and how is it defined? 3. What are possible solutions to the felt difficulty? 4. What are logical reasons that support the solution? 5. What additional testing and observation need to be done to confirm the validity of the solution? These five steps should look familiar. They are very close to the five steps we just mentioned. Even though Dewey did not focus specifically on small groups, the steps he outlined, called reflective thinking—a series of logical, rational steps based on the scientific method of defining, analyzing, and solving a problem—have been used by many groups as a way to structure the problem-solving process. As new courses in group discussion were being designed in the 1920s and 1930s, teachers and authors adapted Dewey’s framework as a standard agenda that could be used to tackle any problem-solving group discussion. One of the first texts to adapt these steps explicitly was Alfred Dwight Sheffield’s brief book Creative Discussion: A Statement of Method for Leaders and Members of Discussion Groups and Conferences, first published in 1926.4 Soon other scholars began making similar references to this sequence, and, as you will see in the discussion that follows, it has become a standard agenda for structuring group problem solving.5 Finding a Balance between Group Structure and Interaction Communicating with others in small groups to solve a problem is often a messy and disorganized process.6 Even though some researchers have identified distinct phases in the course of a group’s deliberation (orientation, conflict, emergence, reinforcement), others find that group discussion often bounces from person to person and can be an inefficient, time-consuming process.7 And, as we discussed in Chapter 2, groups also develop fantasy themes that can trigger a chain of stories—some that are related to the group’s task and some that are not. Although these stories and group fantasies are important to a group’s identity, extended off-task “storytelling” can have a negative effect on the group’s productivity. To help group members manage the messiness of group discussion, a group needs a certain amount of structure to keep the discussion focused. Group structure consists of the agenda and other techniques and procedures to help a group stay focused on the task at hand. A group also needs the energy that comes from interaction. Interaction is simply the give-and-take conversation that occurs when people collaborate. We suggest that a group needs a balance of structure and interaction to be both efficient and effective. Groups Need Structure To counteract the messiness of group interaction, researchers investigating groups have suggested that an agenda be used to structure the discussion. The purpose of a group agenda is to help keep the discussion on track, not to stifle group interaction or consciousness raising. Robert Bales found that most task-oriented groups spend a little over 60 percent of their time talking about the task and almost 40 percent of their time talking about social, relational, or maintenance matters.8 An agenda ensures that the time spent talking about the task helps the group accomplish its goal. Researchers have found that groups and teams that have no planned structure or agenda have many more procedural problems.9 Here’s a summary of what researchers have found by observing “naturally occurring” or unhindered discussion, where there is little or no structure. 1. The group takes more time to deliberate; interaction is inefficient and often off task. 2. Group members prematurely focus on solutions rather than analyzing issues. 3. The group often jumps at the first solution mentioned. 4. Group members hop from one idea or proposal to the next without seeing the larger issues. 5. The group is more likely to be dominated by an outspoken group member. 6. Conflict is likely to go unmanaged.10 The conclusion to be drawn from this research: Groups and teams need help to keep them on track. Of all the various ways to organize or structure discussion, which method seems to be the best? Many sequences of techniques have not been tested empirically. Among those sequences that have been compared in controlled studies, no single method seems to work best all of the time. One powerful conclusion, however, emerges from the research: Any method of structuring group problem solving is better than no method at all.11 Groups need structure because members have relatively short attention spans and because uncertainty results both from the relationships among group members and from the group’s definition of the task. In separate studies, researchers found that groups shift topics about once a minute.12 As noted in the last chapter, Poole argues that group members consider task process, relational concerns, and topical shifts with varying degrees of attention. Thus, groups benefit from an agenda that keeps the discussion focused on their task. And one research study found that some members need more structure than others. Group members who have a preference for using more rigid procedures arrived at higher-quality decisions than those using a less-structured approach to organizing their discussion.13 Another benefit of structuring conversation in a group is that group members are more likely to remember information during a more structured, focused discussion than a less focused, free-wheeling conversation.14 Having members first write information down and then share their information with the group increases the likelihood that they will remember what they share. Think of the various steps and tools in this chapter as a way to impose a common structure on a group’s deliberation. Without that structure, a group is more likely to wobble, waste time, and be less productive. Groups Need Interaction In addition to a structured agenda and procedures to help the group stay on task, groups need interaction—give-and-take conversation, talk, dialogue, and reaction to the messages of others. A group that has too much structure and not enough interaction is a group out of balance; participating in such a group would be like listening to someone give a speech rather than engaging in an interactive discussion. In trying to find the right balance between structure and interaction, researchers have found support for the following principles: High quality contributions early in the group’s deliberation improve group performance. The more individuals share their information with others early in the group’s discussion, the more group performance improves. If group members not only share but also understand the value and importance of individual contributions, then group performance improves.15 In order to achieve these principles, groups need facilitation to help balance structure and interaction so that all members participate. FIGURE 11.1 The Balance Between Structure and Interaction In this chapter we identify techniques that not only help your group stay on track (structure) but also facilitate group conversation about the topic at hand (interaction). Ideally, a group should have balanced participation to which all members contribute.16 A group member who talks too much can throw the group off balance. As Figure 11.1 suggests, the goal is to find the right balance between structure and interaction. Based on his effective decision-making theory, John Oetzel has found that groups that have more equal participation enjoy better-quality results; this research supports the assumption that groups need balanced interaction to achieve their goals.17 Interaction and collaborative group discussion has the advantage of facilitating cooperation in the group. One research team found that group members who first had a collaborative discussion about a decision, before making an individual decision about the issue, were more likely to make a decision that benefited the entire group.18 The very act of group interaction facilitates group cooperation. Some research studies suggest that groups that used networked computers to share information (a highly structured situation) generated lots of ideas but had difficulty reaching a decision.19 A less-structured, interactive, face-to-face situation was better for discussing alternatives and reaching a final decision. Many of the prescriptive agendas we discuss in this chapter incorporate the key communication functions of effective groups discussed in the last chapter. Reflective Thinking: The Traditional Approach to Group Problem Solving Some researchers and numerous group communication textbooks recommend reflective thinking (or one of its many variations) as the standard agenda for organizing or structuring group problem solving. However, many group communication theorists today believe that reflective thinking is more useful as a description of the way some people solve problems than as an ideal pattern for all groups to solve problems. We describe the procedures and tools that can assist you and your groups in organizing the sometimes uncertain and fractious process of problem solving. The steps we present here are not intended to be a one-size-fits-all approach. They do, however, provide a logical, rational way of structuring group interaction.20 Step 1: Identify and Define the Problem Perhaps you have heard the saying “A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” A group first has to recognize that a problem exists. This may be the group’s biggest obstacle. The problem should be limited so that members know its scope and size. After members identify and limit the problem, they should define key terms in light of the problem under consideration so that they have a common understanding of the problem. For example, one student group recently decided to solve the problem of student apathy on campus. The students phrased their problem as a question: “What can be done to alleviate student apathy on campus?” They had identified a problem, but they soon discovered that they needed to decide what they meant by the word apathy. Does it mean poor attendance at football games? Does it mean a sparse showing at the recent fund-raising activity, “Hit Your Professor with a Pie”? After additional efforts to define the key word, they decided to limit their problem to low attendance at events sponsored by the student activities committee. With a clearer focus on their problem, they were ready to continue with the problem-solving process. Researchers have consistently found that groups develop better solutions to their problems if they take the time to analyze the issues before jumping in and listing possible solutions; groups and teams have a tendency, however, to leap to a solution before looking at and analyzing the issues.21 Consider the following questions when attempting to identify and define a problem for group deliberations: 1. What is the specific problem the group is concerned about? 2. What obstacles are keeping the group from its goal? 3. Is the question the group is trying to answer clear? 4. What terms, concepts, or ideas need to be defined? 5. Who is harmed by the problem? 6. When do the harmful effects of the problem occur? When trying to pin down precisely what the problem is, groups should remember the principles of systems theory that we discussed in Chapter 2. It’s often not a single factor that is the cause of a problem; systems theory suggests that there are often multiple sources of a problem. As team researchers Peter Scholtes, Brian Joiner, and Barbara Streible put it, “Once people recognize that systems create the majority of problems, they stop blaming individual employees. They instead ask which system needs improvement, and are more likely to seek out and find the true source of improvement.”22 Tools for Defining the Problem In addition to using the questions listed above to identify and define the problem, three techniques that provide even more structure—the is/is not analysis, the journalist’s six questions, Pareto charts, and SWOT—may be useful when your group needs “super” structure to clarify and define the problem. Is/Is Not Analysis The is/is not analysis technique is a way to ensure that a group is, in fact, investigating a problem and not just a symptom of the problem.23 Early in a group’s deliberation, group members consider such questions as “What is the area or object with the problem?” “What is not the area or object with the problem?” “Where does the problem occur?” “Where does the problem not occur?” The chart below includes other questions that can help give the group the structure it needs to clearly identify and define a problem. Group members can use the chart to focus on the specific problem under consideration. Members could first write down their answers and then share their responses one at a time. Having group members write before speaking is a way to help further structure their comments. Is Is Not What What is the area or object with the problem? What is not the area or object with the problem? Symptoms What are the symptoms of the problem? What are not the symptoms of the problem? When When is the problem observed? When is the problem not observed? Where Where does the problem occur? Where does the problem not occur? Who Who is affected by the problem? Who is not affected by the problem? For example, one group was attempting to investigate the declining standardized test scores in one elementary school in their community. They thought the problem they were trying to solve was inadequate teaching that resulted in lowered scores. But when the group used the is/is not technique to identify when and where the problem was and was not observed, they discovered that the low test scores occurred in only three classrooms, which were in the same wing of the building and all cooled by the same air-conditioning system. On further investigation, they realized that the air-conditioning units were not functioning, which meant that classrooms in that wing were uncomfortably hot—which in turn affected student performance on the examinations. The problem changed from trying to eliminate bad teaching to repairing the air-conditioning system. The is/is not technique is a way to identify and define the problem rather than the symptoms of the problem. COLLABORATING ETHICALLY: What Would You Do? You have been assigned to work with four other students on a semester-long project that counts for 30 percent of your course grade. All members of your group will share the same grade. One member of your group, Enrique, has two small children to support and, in addition to attending your university, holds down a full-time job at a convenience store. You like and admire Enrique. He’s a friendly person who is working hard to take care of his family. But he just isn’t following through on his share of the work for your group. Enrique has missed almost half of the meetings, yet he e-mails everyone now and then with information and statistics to try to do his part, but he has clearly contributed less to the group than the other group members. Toward the end of the semester his two-year-old becomes ill and Enrique has to spend even more time away from the group. Although your instructor in the course hasn’t asked for information about how well other group members followed through on their work assignments, you’re concerned that your entire group may get a lower grade due to Enrique’s failure to do his fair share of the work. Other group members say, “Oh, cut him some slack. He’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.” You’re the only group member who is upset about the imbalance of work. Would you tell your instructor about the lopsided workload, or just keep quiet? What would you do? Journalist’s Six Questions Most news reporters are taught to quickly identify the key facts when writing a news story or broadcasting a news event. The key elements of almost any newsworthy story can be captured by addressing a journalist’s six questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? Using these questions can help a group quickly structure how a problem is defined. Group members could be given a worksheet such as the one shown here and asked to answer these six questions before the group’s next meeting.24 The group could then pool the results and be well on the way to analyzing the problem. Or, the group could brainstorm answers to these questions while the group leader records the responses on a flip chart or chalkboard. Who What? When? Where? Why? How? Pareto Charts A Pareto chart is a bar graph that shows data that describe the cause, source, or frequency of a problem. The chart is arranged with the tallest bars on the left and the shortest bars on the right. A Pareto chart makes it easy to look at data and identify the source of the problem. The chart gets its name from the Pareto Principle. Perhaps you’ve heard it: The source of 80 percent of the problem comes from 20 percent of the incidents.25 Here are some examples: Eighty percent of the dirt on your carpet is on 20 percent of the carpet’s surface; 80 percent of the food you order comes from 20 percent of the menu; 80 percent of the conflict in a group is created by 20 percent of the group members. Most groups find that the primary source of the problem comes from only a few examples. When a group or team is struggling to figure out exactly what the problem is, a Pareto chart can help the group spot the issue easily. FIGURE 11.2 Pareto Chart: Causes of Errors on Financial Aid Statements Consider an example: One group was interested in why there were so many errors on financial aid statements at their university; students weren’t receiving their financial aid on time. They gathered data and found that 61 percent of the problem was caused by improperly completed financial-aid forms, 23 percent was related to errors in entering data into the computer, 4 percent of the mistakes were caused by the fact that students provided no phone number, and 3 percent arose because students did not provide their e-mail addresses. When the group displayed these data on a Pareto chart, as shown in Figure 11.2, they could easily see the main source of the problem—the forms weren’t being completed properly. SWOT Analysis SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. SWOT analysis is the technique used to help groups and teams identify and analyze big issues that influence the group or organization and can be helpful in both identifying and analyzing problems. How do you conduct a SWOT analysis? Working individually or collectively as a group, you brainstorm a list of each of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats of the group or organization, or use a template like the one in Figure 11.3. As illustrated in Figure 11.3, note that both strengths and weakness are internal factors of the group or organization—these are factors that exist within the group or organization. Opportunities and threats are those forces external to the group or organization that serve as either an outside positive factor (opportunity) or something that may jeopardize (threaten) a current positive action. With the SWOT identified, the next step is to rank order the information in each box: What is the greatest strength? What is our greatest weakness? What is our biggest opportunity? What is the most significant threat? FIGURE 11.3 Analyzing Organizational Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats: SWOT After identifying and ranking each of the four categories, the next step in the analysis is to consider the following questions: 1. How can we build on or maximize our strengths? 2. How can we overcome or reduce our weaknesses? 3. How can we take advantage of the opportunities? 4. How can we address the threats and potential threats? A SWOT analysis can be used to identify problems by noting weaknesses, or could be a useful technique to analyze a problem. Step 2: Analyze the Problem Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, was fond of saying that nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs. To analyze a problem is to break a problem into causes, effects, symptoms, and subproblems. During the analysis phase of group problem solving, members need to research and investigate the problem. In analyzing the problem, a group may wish to consider the following questions: 1. What is the history of the problem? How long has it existed? 2. How serious is the problem? 3. What are the causes of the problem? 4. What are the effects of the problem? 5. What are the symptoms of the problem? 6. What methods does the group already have for dealing with the problem? 7. What are the limitations of those methods? 8. How much freedom does the group have in gathering information and attempting to solve the problem? 9. What obstacles keep the group from achieving the goal? 10. Can the problem be divided into subproblems for definition and analysis? How a group analyzes information it gathers can make all the difference in how a group frames issues and, ultimately, solves problems. There’s the story about a shoe factory manager who sends two marketing executives to Africa to scout out the possibility of selling shoes there. The first executive sends a telegram back to the home office saying: Situation hopeless. No one wears shoes. The other marketing executive writes excitedly: Glorious business opportunity. They have no shoes.26 Both executives had the same information; they simply analyzed the situation differently. Tools for Analyzing a Problem Groups may need help in breaking a problem down into its subcomponents. Two techniques can help a group sort out factors contributing to the problem: (1) force-field analysis and (2) cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagram. Each technique can help a group focus on data and facts rather than on vague impressions of what may be causing the problem. Force-Field Analysis This technique is based on the assumptions of Kurt Lewin, often called the father of group dynamics.27 To use force-field analysis, a group needs to have a clear statement of its goal, which can be stated in terms of what the group wants more of or less of (for example, “We need more money, more time, or less interference from others”). The group analyzes the goal by noting what driving forces make it likely to be achieved and what restraining forces make it unlikely to be achieved. Follow these steps to complete a force-field-analysis chart such as the one in Figure 11.4.28 Step 1. Identify the goal, objective, or target the group is trying to achieve (such as more money, fewer errors). Step 2. On the right side of the chart, list all the restraining forces—those that currently keep the group from achieving its goal. Step 3. On the left side of the chart, list all the driving forces—those that currently help the group achieve its goal. Step 4. The group can now decide whether to do one of three things: (a) increase the driving forces; (b) decrease the restraining forces; (c) increase selected driving forces and decrease those restraining forces over which the group has control. FIGURE 11.4 Force-Field Analysis Chart Source: Julius E. Eitington, The Winning Trainer (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1989). Used with permission. All rights reserved. After the group has sorted through the facts and identified the driving and restraining forces, it will more likely be able to focus on the essential causes of a problem rather than on the problem’s symptoms. Say, for example, you are working in a group whose goal is to increase teamwork and collaboration among faculty and students. Driving forces—forces that favor teamwork—include such factors as faculty members who are motivated to work with students, students who also want to work with faculty, an existing training program that teaches teamwork and collaboration skills to both students and faculty. These and other driving forces could be included on the left-hand side of the force-field chart. Restraining forces—forces that work against increased collaboration—include current lack of knowledge of teamwork principles, the negative attitudes of a small but vocal group of faculty members who want to use more individual approaches to education, and the lack of a tradition of collaboration. These obstacles would be listed on the right side of the chart. Ideally, the group should work together on the force-field analysis diagram by using a flip chart or projecting the chart using an overhead projector. After generating additional driving and restraining forces, the group then turns its attention to the question “What can be done to increase the driving forces and decrease the restraining forces?” The group’s force-field analysis of the problem can provide new insights for overcoming the obstacles and achieving the goal. Cause-and-Effect (Fishbone) Diagram Another problem analysis tool often used in groups and teams is the cause-and-effect diagram, also often called a fishbone diagram because the completed diagram looks like the skeleton of a fish. Developed by Kaoru Ishikawa, a Japanese specialist in quality management, this diagram helps groups and teams visually examine the relationship between causes and their probable effects.29 To develop a cause-and-effect diagram, first think of the possible effect you want to analyze. For example, imagine your group is trying to identify possible causes in the drop in students’ standardized test scores in your community high school. The drop in test scores is the effect, but you aren’t sure what’s causing the drop. To prepare a cause-and-effect diagram, draw a long horizontal line on a piece of paper, chalkboard, or flipchart. Then, angling out from the long line, draw lines to represent possible causes of the drop in scores. Here you must use your analytical skills. For example, as illustrated in Figure 11.5, the major causes could be that the test-administration instructions are unclear; that parents are not involved; that teachers may not have time to prepare students for the test; or that students may have too many competing activities. Then, on each of the four angled lines, list possible contributing factors for each of the four main problem causes. For example, on the line suggesting that students have competing activities, you could draw lines to specify those competing activities. If you’re stumped for a way to get started analyzing the problem, Ishikawa suggested that almost all problems boil down to issues related to the “four M’s”: Manpower (people), Machines, Materials, and Methods. You could begin your analysis by drawing a line angling off the horizontal line to represent each of these four categories. The advantage of the cause-and-effect diagram is that all group members can work together to show relationships between causes and effects. For groups and teams to collaborate, they need a common format that helps them collaborate. A cause-and-effect diagram creates that shared space in which to work. You don’t need to make your diagram complicated; you don’t always need four lines angling off the center line. Often, simpler is better. The key is to write down the potential causes so all group or team members can see the relationships among possible causes and the known effect. As suggested by management consultant Peter Scholtes, “One of the biggest challenges in creating a cause-and-effect diagram is to have the bones show cause-and-effect relationships.”30 He cautions that cause-and-effect diagrams only depict potential causes. Once you have a list of potential causes, your group will need to verify the relationship between the cause and the effect with data and evidence. FIGURE 11.5 Cause-and-Effect (Fishbone) Diagram PROMOD Technique Erich Witte developed and tested a way of structuring interaction in a group to ensure that the problem is effectively analyzed and that information gleaned from the analysis is shared with the entire group.31 PROMOD is designed to make sure group members have an opportunity to first individually analyze the problem or issue under consideration and then systematically share that analysis with other group members. Results from his research studies have concluded that by first individually structuring the analysis of the problem and development of solutions, and then sharing the information with the entire group, groups develop a better, high quality solution than if the group had not used the PROMOD Technique. Witte suggests that group members first individually read a summary of the problem that also includes a digest of all the information and data known about the issue. Having the problem summarized in writing ensures that all group members are aware of the problem and have a common information base on which to base their analysis. The facilitation of the discussion is organized around four key steps that alternate between individual analysis and group sharing: (1) problem analysis (individual analysis), (2) information exchange (share analysis with the group), (3) problem resolution (individually identify a solution), and (4) group integration to reach consensus (work collaboratively to pool ideas and analysis to develop the best solution). Here’s a brief step-by-step summary of the PROMOD Technique. Step 1: Individual Problem Analysis Group members individually read the information and underline, mark, or highlight important information found in the written summary of the problem. Group members individually identify possible strategies that would influence the problem, as well as analyze problems and risks for the alternative strategies. Group members individually identify possible decisions/solutions to manage the issue or problem. Group members individually rank the decisions/solutions from best to worse. Step 2: Group Information Exchange Group members share written information and analysis among all group members. Group members then review their analysis with other group members. Collaboratively, group members compare the rankings of how the issue could be managed. Step 3: Individual Problem Resolution Individually, group members revise their individual analysis and ranking of decisions. Group members privately make a final decision. Group members individually re-rank their list of solutions. Step 4: Collaborative Group Integration Group members collaboratively share their revised decisions. Group members discuss the results and seek a consensus on the outcome. Group members make a decision either by consensus, majority vote, or group ranking to reach a final decision. The essence of PROMOD Technique is to alternate individual analysis of the problem or issue with group sharing of the information. Writing down the analysis of the problem and then sharing that analysis assures that all group members’ ideas are considered. After a comprehensive analysis of the problem or issue, group members make an individual recommendation, and then the group collectively seeks to reach consensus. How to Establish Criteria Another task often part of the analysis step of the reflective-thinking process is to formulate criteria—standards or goals for an acceptable solution. Articulating criteria helps the group know when it has developed a good solution because the criteria spell out what the final outcome should look like. Here are some questions that can help your group develop criteria. 1. What outcome are we trying to accomplish? 2. How will we know when we have completed our task? 3. Which criteria or standards are most important? 4. Which criteria are less important? For example, criteria for a solution might include the following: 1. The solution should be inexpensive. 2. The solution should be implemented by a certain date and time. 3. The solution should address the causes of the problem, not just the symptoms. 4. All group members should agree to the solution. Although we describe the setting of criteria as integral to analyzing the problem, the research literature is mixed as to when a group should explicitly identify criteria. One study found that the precise point during the problem-solving process when criteria were discussed did not seem to make a difference in the group’s final outcome.33 In fact, group members thought it made more sense to them to discuss criteria after they had identified several possible solutions. Consider this principle: The more uncertain group members are about the goal of the discussion, the more important it is to explicitly talk about criteria. If the goal is fairly obvious (for example, if a group is given the task of cutting 10 percent of a budget), then it’s probably not necessary to ask, “OK, what are we looking for in a solution?” Everyone already knows what the standard for the solution is. But if the goal is less clear-cut, it may be helpful to make sure that the group knows what the outcome of its discussion should be. As you learned in Chapter 1, one of the most important behaviors of an effective team is to develop a clear, elevating goal.34 Developing clear criteria is another way of ensuring that all group members know what the goal of the group is, so that group members know when they’ve identified a good solution. VIRTUAL GROUPS One of the ways a group can create structure is to do some of its work via e-mail. Rather than having people generate ideas face to face, assign group members some homework, to be submitted online. Or consider inviting group members to share their ideas for defining and analyzing problems via e-mail before meeting face to face. Here are some examples: If a group is attempting to define a problem, take time during a face-to-face meeting to teach the group how to conduct is/is not analysis. Then each group member should complete an is/is not analysis and submit the information to one individual via e-mail. The person to whom the information is sent can then cull out duplicated information and prepare a summary of the information that the group can discuss at its next meeting. According to research, virtual group members do a poorer job of sharing information than face-to-face groups. So where possible, save the virtual group interaction to help analyze and evaluate information rather than sharing information.32 At a face-to-face meeting, the group could begin a general discussion about the nature of the problem it is attempting to solve. Then group members can submit e-mail responses to the journalist’s six questions. One person can then collate and summarize the responses for the group to discuss. Conduct a force-field analysis via e-mail. After clarifying the group goal, assign some group members to identify the driving forces that would increase the likelihood of the goal’s being achieved. Others could submit a list of restraining forces. The information could be summarized and then discussed at the next meeting. Invite the group to do an analysis of the pros and cons of a particular solution via e-mail. But provide clear structure and directions as to precisely how group members should generate a list of pros and cons. Consider e-mailing each member a worksheet that includes specific directions for summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of a specific proposal. Step 3: Generate Several Possible Solutions After analyzing a problem and identifying criteria for a solution, the group should turn its attention to listing possible solutions in tentative, hypothetical terms. It’s important that the group not be tempted to start listing solutions too early in the discussion; better solutions occur when groups take time to thoroughly define and analyze the issues. Creativity is needed at each step of the problem-solving process, but it is especially important when the group attempts to develop solutions. Creativity is such an important part of group deliberations that we devote the next chapter to discussing the principles and practices of group creativity. Step 4: Evaluate Options and Select the Best Solution or Combination of Solutions After a group has compiled a list of possible solutions to a problem, it should be ready to evaluate the various possible solutions and then select the best one. How do you narrow down a long list of proposed solutions? One way is to refer to the criteria proposed during the analysis stage of the discussion (or to take time now to develop criteria) and consider each tentative solution in light of these criteria. The group should decide which proposed solution or combination of solutions best meets its criteria. Narrowing a list of possible solutions down to one or two options is usually much harder for groups than generating options in the first place. Our discussion of how to facilitate consensus, presented in Chapter 8, offers several strategies for narrowing the number of options. The following questions may be helpful in analyzing the proposed solutions: 1. What are the advantages of each solution? 2. Are there any disadvantages to a solution? Do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? 3. What would be the long-term and short-term effects of this solution if it were adopted? 4. Would the solution really solve the problem? 5. Does the solution conform to the criteria formulated by the group? 6. Should the group modify the criteria? If group members agree, the criteria for a best solution may need to be changed or modified.35 © 8-26-01 2001 Scott Adams, Inc./Dist. By UFS, Inc. Tools for Evaluating the Solutions In addition to asking questions to guide discussion of the solutions or alternatives that the group has identified, the following are additional ways of focusing or structuring discussion.36 Analyze the pros and cons One of the most consistent findings of functional communication researchers is that when groups weigh the positive and negative outcomes of solutions, they make better decisions.37 One method of facilitating such a discussion is to make a T-charts (named for its shape), like the one here, to evaluate solution pros and cons. If the group is large and you want to make sure everyone participates, you can have members first write their own lists of pros and cons (or risks and benefits) and then share their responses with the group. For example, if a group is trying to decide whether to purchase a new piece of property, one side of the center line might list positive aspects of the purchase (good investment, property values increasing, good location, and so on). On the other side would be negative implications of the purchase (reduced cash flow, increased property taxes, expensive lawyer fees, and so on). A thorough look at pros and cons can help a group consider alternatives before it makes a final decision. Evidence suggests that groups often find more positive benefits than negative implications when evaluating the pros and cons.38 So make sure the group identifies both positive and negative outcomes when reviewing various options. Average Rankings and Ratings It is usually easier for a group to identify possible solutions than it is to narrow the list of alternatives and select the best solution. If a group has many solutions to evaluate, one way to narrow the list is to ask group members to either rank or rate the solutions and then average the rankings or ratings to see which solutions emerge as the most and least popular. Ranking or rating should be done after a group has discussed the pros and cons of the solutions. Ranking solutions works best if you have no more than five to seven solutions; group members often have a difficult time ranking more than seven items. If you have a very long list of solutions—a dozen or more—you may ask the group members to rank their top five choices, assigning a rank of 1 to their top choice, 2 to their next choice, and so on. One researcher has found that asking the group to rank-order a list of possible alternatives is a better procedure than asking the group to pick the best solution. By ranking each option, group members are forced to critically evaluate each alternative.39 Besides ranking solutions, group members could also assign a rating score to each solution. Each solution could be rated on a five-point scale, with a rating of 1 being a very positive evaluation and 5 being a negative evaluation. Even a long list of 20 or more potential solutions could be rated. Group members’ ratings for each solution could be averaged, and the most highly rated solutions could be discussed again by the entire group. Step 5: Test and Implement the Solution Group members should be confident that the proposed solution is valid—that it will solve the problem. A classic way to make sure the solution works is to develop a prototype of the solution. A prototype is a smaller version of the solution your team has developed, so you can test it before implementing the solution on a wide scale. For example, if your group has decided to design a new Web site for your organization to help promote events and communicate new policies, before making the Web site available to everyone, you should develop a sample or prototype Web page to see how it looks. You could then test it with a small group of people to see if the site is clear and does what you want it to do. When Thomas Edison and his team of researchers were developing the light bulb, they famously developed a prototype light bulb to test it before deciding “This is it!” and announcing their discovery to the world.40 If your group is developing a new procedure or process, you could plan a pilot program to test your process before implementing it. A pilot program allows testing the solution on a limited basis, or testing on a small sample of people, before making a final decision. Software designers often first release what they call a beta version (test version) of the software before fully releasing it for widespread distribution. After a group selects the best solution, it must determine how the solution can be put into effect. You may wish to consider the following questions: 1. How can the group get approval and support for its proposed solution? 2. What specific steps are necessary to implement the solution? 3. How can the group evaluate the success of its problem-solving efforts? In many groups, those who choose a solution are not the same people who will implement it. If this is the case, members who select the solution should clearly explain why they selected it to members who will put the solution into practice. If they can demonstrate that the group went through an orderly process to solve the problem, they usually can convince others that their solution is valid. Tools for Implementing a Solution There are two key tools for implementing a solution: (1) an action chart and (2) a flowchart. An action chart is a grid that lists the tasks that need to be done and identifies who will be responsible for each task. Such a chart is based on more elaborate diagrams and procedures, such as a PERT diagram. PERT (the initials stand for Program Evaluation and Review Technique) was originally developed by the U.S. Navy in the late 1950s to assist with the Polaris missile program.41 The action chart here was developed by using the following steps: 1. Identify the project goal. 2. Identify the activities needed to complete the project. 3. Identify the sequence of activities (what should be done first, second, third, and so on). 4. Estimate the amount of time it should take to complete each task. 5. Determine which group members should be responsible for each task. 6. Develop a chart that shows the relationships among the tasks, times, people, and sequence of events that are needed to accomplish the project. Names Ken • • • • • Daryl • • Steve • • Janice • • • Carl • • • • Assignment Conduct needs assessment Write behavioral objectives Develop training content outline Write training facilitator guide Develop audio-visual resources Conduct training pilot test Conduct training for client Analyze evaluation data Week Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Day Monday Friday Monday Friday Monday Friday Monday Friday One reason solutions are not implemented is that people are uncertain about who should do what. An action chart provides needed structure to reduce this uncertainty. An action chart also helps ensure that everybody is aware of what needs to be done and reduces the risk that nobody will do anything. FIGURE 11.6 Flowchart of Group Decisions on Fund-Raising Activity A flowchart is a step-by-step diagram of a multistep process. Consider an example: One group was charged with choosing and carrying out a fund-raising activity. The chart in Figure 11.6 shows how the group described the essential steps involved holding a fund-raiser. Flowcharts can help a group see whether the various procedures they have identified to solve a problem are practical and fit together. A flowchart can also help your group work through logistics and identify practical problems of moving from an idea’s conception to its implementation. Like an action plan, a flowchart is a way to give structure to group thought. Flowcharts can be simple, like our example, or very complex, like those used by computer programmers when writing sophisticated programs. How detailed does a flowchart need to be? The level of detail depends on the needs of the group. We caution you, however, not to make the flowchart so detailed that your goal becomes developing a flowchart rather than describing and implementing a process. Use a flowchart as a tool to make sure all group members have a clear understanding of the critical parts of a more complex process. How to Use Reflective Thinking in Your Group or Team Reflective thinking assumes that groups work best when their discussions are organized rather than disorganized or random. Remember that you should use reflective thinking as a guide, not as an exact formula for solving every problem. As noted earlier, several group communication researchers have discovered that groups do not necessarily solve problems in a linear, step-by-step process.42 The process by which groups solve problems goes through several phases of growth and development as members interact.43 Reflective thinking is most useful in helping groups understand the phases of problem solving. As Ernest Bormann has noted, “Difficulties arise when [group] participants demand rationality from a group throughout its deliberations.”44 In trying to apply reflective thinking to group problem solving, consider the following suggestions. 1. Take time to reflect on the procedures the group is using and how group members are interacting. To reflect is to consciously consider precisely how the group and individual group members are talking with one another.45 Is the group following a structured plan? Are group members first analyzing the problem before generating solutions? Is the group aware of how it’s communicating? Research supports the process of having at least one group member reflect and verbalize how the group is doing in following procedures and communicating effectively.46 Groups that don’t have someone helping them reflect perform less effectively. Reflecting helps both face-to-face and electronically mediated groups. 2. Clearly identify the problem you are trying to solve. Make sure that you are not just discussing a topic. For example, one group decides to discuss the quality of the U.S. judicial system. The group selects a topic area, but it does not identify a problem. It should focus clearly on a specific problem, such as “How can we improve the quality of the judicial system in the United States?” or “What should be done to improve the education and training of lawyers in the United States?” 3. Phrase the problem as a question to help guide group discussion. Stating your group’s problem as a question adds focus and direction to your deliberations. When formulating a problem-solving discussion question, keep in mind the guidelines discussed in Chapter 4. 4. Do not suggest solutions until you have analyzed the problem. Many group communication researchers agree that until your group has researched the problem, you may not have enough information and specific facts to reach the best solution.47 5. In the definition and analysis steps of reflective thinking, do not confuse the causes of the problem with its symptoms. A fever and headache are symptoms, not necessarily causes, of a patient’s ill health. The cause may be a cold or flu virus or a number of other things. A doctor tries to identify the cause of symptoms by running tests and analyzing a patient’s medical history. In other words, a doctor needs to define, analyze, and solve a problem. You should try to clarify the differences between the causes and the symptoms (effects) of a problem. Perhaps your only goal is to alleviate the symptoms. However, you can better understand your group’s goal if you can distinguish causes and symptoms. 6. Constantly evaluate your group’s problem-solving method. For many years the only problem-solving method suggested to group-discussion classes was reflective thinking. Some communication theorists suggest, however, that for certain types of problems, alternative problem-solving methods work just as well, if not better, than reflective thinking. The final part of this chapter discusses some of these other problem-solving strategies. 7. Appoint one or more group members to remind the group to use a structured method of solving problems. One study found that groups in which one member is trained to help the group be mindful of the procedures it uses will make high-quality decisions.48 Raters were trained to remind the group to use effective problem-solving and decision-making skills by asking the following questions at appropriate times: Do we have enough evidence to support our choice of solution? Have we looked at a sufficient number of alternatives? Have we reexamined alternatives we rejected previously? Have we avoided stereotypical thinking or premature judgments? Because you’re taking a course in small group communication, you now know the importance of helping a group stay on track and be vigilant thinkers, so you can periodically ask these questions. Even if you’re not the appointed leader of a group, you can have a positive impact on the quality of the group’s discussion by helping the group examine its process. Question-Oriented Approaches to Problem Solving Another approach to problem solving requires groups to consider a series of questions to keep them oriented toward their goal. Two such approaches are discussed in the following sections: (1) the ideal-solution format and (2) the single-question format. Both formats help groups identify the critical issues they need to resolve and organize their thinking about the best possible solutions. Ideal-Solution Format Obviously, problem-solving groups want to identify the best solutions to problems. In the ideal-solution format, groups answer questions designed to help them identify ideal solutions. Alvin Goldberg and Carl Larson have devised the following agenda of questions: 1. Do all members agree on the nature of the problem? 2. What would be the ideal solution from the point of view of all parties involved in the problem? 3. What conditions within the problem could be changed so that the ideal solution might be achieved? 4. Of the solutions available, which one best approximates the ideal solution?49 These questions help groups recognize the barriers that the problems under consideration have created. The questions also encourage groups to analyze a problem’s cause and to evaluate proposed solutions. The advantage of the ideal-solution format over other problem-solving approaches is its simplicity. Group members simply consider each of the above questions one at a time. One expert recommends the ideal-solution format for discussions among people with varied interests; this format works best when acceptance of a solution is important.50 The format enables group members to see the problem from several viewpoints in their search for the best solution. Although the ideal-solution format is similar to reflective thinking, its chief value is that it uses questions to help a group systematically identify and analyze a problem, pinpoint the best possible solution, and formulate specific methods for achieving a solution. Like the other problem-solving formats presented in this chapter, it helps a group—particularly one whose members have varying viewpoints and experiences—to focus on a problem and devise ways to solve it in a rational, structured way. Single-Question Format Like the ideal-solution format, the single-question format poses a series of questions designed to guide the group toward a best solution. Goldberg and Larson suggest that the answers to the following five questions can help a group achieve its goal: 1. What question does the group need to answer in order to accomplish its purpose? 2. What subquestions must be answered before the group can answer the single question it has formulated? 3. Does the group have sufficient information to answer the subquestions confidently? 4. What are the most reasonable answers to the subquestions? 5. Assuming that the answers to the subquestions are correct, what is the best solution to the problem?51 Unlike the ideal-solution format, the single-question format requires a group to formulate a question to help obtain the information needed to solve a problem. The single-question format also helps a group identify and resolve issues that must be confronted before it can reach a solution. As Goldberg and Larson note, “An assumption of the single-question form seems to be that issues must be resolved, however tentatively.”52 Thus, the single-question format probably works best for a group that is capable of reaching agreement on what the issues are and how they can be resolved. A group characterized by conflict and contention would probably not find the single-question approach productive. The success of the single-question format depends on a group’s agreeing on the subissues before trying to agree on the major issues. If you are working with a group that has difficulty reaching agreement, the single-question format may not be the best approach. The group may become bogged down arguing about trivial matters while the major issues remain unexamined. Decide whether your group will be able to reach agreement on the minor issues before you decide to use the single-question format. If your group cannot reach agreement, either the ideal-solution format or the reflective-thinking format may be a better method of organizing your group’s deliberations. How to Use Question-Oriented Approaches in Your Group or Team You may have noticed some similarities among the single-question, the ideal-solution, and the reflective-thinking formats. By guiding groups toward their goals with questions, the ideal-solution and single-question formats help groups agree on minor issues before they try to agree on solutions to problems. Carl Larson tried to find out whether an ideal-solution, single-question, or reflective-thinking format, or no format at all, would produce better solutions.53 His study indicates that ideal-solution and single-question formats generated better solutions than did the reflective-thinking approach. All three approaches fared better than no approach at all. Recording group members’ ideas on a flip chart can help provide necessary structure when the group is trying to solve problems. What other equipment might help solve group problems? Of course, a single study does not prove that the single-question and ideal-solution formats are superior to the reflective-thinking format, but it does suggest that under certain conditions, goal-oriented approaches may have certain advantages. In Larson’s study, when groups were given alternatives and told to choose the best solution to a problem, their discussions lasted only about twenty minutes. That is, by considering specific questions, members were able to solve problems efficiently. Norman Maier also concluded that a problem-solving approach that has a group consider minor issues before major issues can improve group decisions.54 If you are going to lead a group discussion, the following suggestions may help you apply the ideal-solution and single-question approaches to problem solving: 1. When using the ideal-solution or single-question approach, provide group members with copies of the questions that will guide their discussion. You can reduce some of the uncertainty that occurs normally in groups by making sure that each person knows the procedure. Tell the group to use the questions as a guide. 2. Explain why you are using the format you have selected. Most groups are willing to go along with a particular discussion agenda, especially if you give them reasons for having selected it. Tell the group that considering specific questions in a developmental format can keep the discussion on track. If your group has a specified time period in which to meet, you can explain that using questions to guide the discussion can help make the discussion more efficient. 3. Keep the discussion focused on the specific question under consideration. Whether the group is using the ideal-solution or single-question format, some group members may be tempted to skip a question or may want to discuss an unrelated issue. You may have to help the group focus on one question at a time. Several studies suggest that groups with members who try to keep participants aware of the pertinent issues by summarizing the discussion and requesting clarification have a good chance of agreeing on a solution and of being satisfied with their discussion.55 4. Agree to use a collaborative approach to solving the problem. Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson suggest that the single-question format can be enhanced if group members explicitly consider the question “What principles should we agree on in order to maintain a reasonable and collaborative approach through the [problem-solving] process?”56 Consider this question early in the problem-solving process. Making collaboration a problem-solving value can enhance teamwork and cooperation. PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE: When Should You Make a Decision Based on Careful Analysis and When Should You Trust Your “Gut Instincts”? In this chapter we’ve presented several structured group problem-solving methods that provide step-by-step techniques for developing criteria and analyzing information when making decisions? But are there times when you should rely more on your intuition rather than on detailed analysis of data? Research by Erik Dane, Kevin Rockmann, and Michael Pratt suggests that in some instances, you can have better results if you rely on your “gut instincts” rather than your head to make decisions and solve problems.57 These researchers had people evaluate how effectively a basketball player played basketball. In one condition the subjects were told to just rely on their intuition and first impression; in another condition subjects developed and used an elaborate method of establishing criteria and then analyzing each basketball shot. They were told not to rely on their intuition. The researchers also wanted to know if the subjects’ ability and experience in playing basketball was a factor in determining whether intuition or detailed analysis made a difference in how well they could evaluate the basketball players. What they found out was that subjects that had a lot of basketball experience and skill more accurately assessed the quality of the basketball play when relying on intuition rather than when using a detailed system of developing criteria and then carefully analyzing data. Real-Life Applications What are the implications of these findings as well as other research about intuition when making decisions and solving problems in small groups?58 Relying on your intuition can be more effective if the task is to make an overall judgment or impression of quality. Carefully establishing criteria and using a detailed method of analysis is more effective if your group is solving a complex, highly structured problem. Don’t ignore your “gut instincts” and intuition, especially if you are an expert or have considerable experience. If you and other group members have limited experience or expertise, then it’s best to use a more structured technique that emphasizes a careful analysis of data and information. Beyond Technique Throughout this book we’ve offered skills, strategies, tips, and techniques for improving group process. We conclude this chapter with a caution: Participating in groups and teams is more than simply applying “how to’s.” As we’ve repeatedly noted, communicating in groups and teams is often a zipping, buzzing, humming, halting, and cacophonous process. Systems theory, discussed in Chapter 2, teaches that group communication is an interrelated, fragile process in which each person or element affects the entire group. Group and team research has not advanced to a state where we can certify that using the various techniques we’ve discussed will always result in high-quality solutions and decisions. Working in a group is more complicated than that.59 How do you know when to adopt a specific technique to help improve a group’s process? The key, we believe, is to listen to your group, watch, observe, and identify what the group needs at a given time. In a word: adapt. Adapt to the needs of the group rather than assuming that a predetermined strategy or technique will somehow miraculously help the group or team achieve a breakthrough. If the group seems confused, disoriented, or stuck when defining or analyzing the task in front of it, then a more structured technique such as the cause-and-effect diagram or force-field analysis may be what the group needs. But if the group is making progress, we don’t recommend that you haul out a group technique such as is/is not analysis, a fishbone diagram, a T-chart, or some other structured technique. The power of a group does not reside in technique. In fact, group researchers have had some difficulty documenting precisely what makes a group successful—and we don’t believe groups will always be successful. There is no one approach or technique that always works. CASE STUDY: WHO LOSES THEIR JOB: Practice in Applying Principles You are one of the managers of a department store in your community. You have just been informed by your supervisor that one of your employees will have to be laid off because of company cutbacks. You meet with your managerial colleagues to decide which employee will be chosen. All employees are full-time, and all work the same number of hours. There is one formal rule you have to follow: The reason for laying a person off must be job-related. Which of the following employees would you and your colleagues choose? Make the best decision you can with the limited information you are given. Be prepared to discuss the reasoning behind your group’s decision.60 Masha. Aged 33, married, with two children, Masha has worked for the company for five years. She loves her job and requires little or no supervision. You have considered giving her a promotion when the opportunity arises. Other people go to Masha when they have questions because she is good at training others. She has been going to school part time to get a management degree and will graduate in another year. Bob. Aged 49, divorced, with one child, Bob has worked with the company for 22 years. He keeps to himself but always gets work done. You never have to give Bob instructions because he knows his job so well. Others in the department call him “Pop” because he seems like a father figure to everyone and is well liked. He really adds a great deal of stability to your department. He does not want to change his job at all because he is happy. You put Bob in charge in your absence. Trent. Aged 19, single, a Native American, Trent just began working for your company 11 months ago. He went to an accelerated school as a child and started college when he was 15 years old. He has since graduated with a business degree and shows promise of going far in your company. He is already the best salesperson in your department. Most people get along with him well. Because he is new, Trent needs a lot of training, but his sales are worth your extra time. Madeline. Madeline is 25, married, and three months pregnant. She transferred to your store only last month but has over three years total experience in the company. You have not been very satisfied with her attendance because she is calling in sick a lot. However, she is the only person that you feel you can give your most difficult tasks to because she is very thorough. She also has had more customer compliments than any other person in your department. Catrina. Catrina is 40, single, has three children, and is a recovering alcoholic. She fulfills a very necessary function in your department by doing maintenance work, which no one else really has time for. Catrina is efficient and is never late; however, she does not really associate with the others. She has worked with the company for over 10 years but she cannot read or write; it is likely that this is one of the few places she could find work. Antonio. Aged 27, single, with no children, Antonio has worked for two years in your department, and in that time he has won three awards for creating outstanding merchandise displays (the heart and soul of retail). He is your most conscientious worker and keeps your department looking great. You have wondered, though, whether he comes to work under the influence of drugs. Several customers have complained about poor grooming habits and language he uses. In the last month, however, he has made significant improvements. Questions for Analysis 1. What is the problem facing your group? 2. What criteria did your group use to help develop a solution? 3. How would you assess the balance between structure and interaction in your group? 4. Before making a decision, how did your group assess the advantages and disadvantages of each option? 5. Did your group use any specific problem-solving or decision-making technique to help structure the discussion? If not, which structured technique could you have used to create a balance between structure and interaction and produce a good solution? Use your knowledge of group problem-solving techniques in combination with your understanding of group process to assess whether your group needs the structure of a specific technique or tool. Effective groups and group members use techniques and strategies thoughtfully to help them make progress toward their goal depending on what is (or is not) happening in the group. Use techniques wisely. STUDY GUIDE: REVIEW, APPLY, AND ASSESS GROUP COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES AN OVERVIEW OF PRESCRIPTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES Objective 1 Describe the origins of the prescriptive approach to problem solving. Group Communication Principles In this chapter we discussed several prescriptive approaches that a group or team can use to solve a problem. In 1910 philosophy and educator John Dewey, in his book How We Think, identified the steps people use to solve problems. These original steps have evolved into what is often called the standard agenda of group problem solving. Key Terms Reflective thinking 271 Standard agenda 271 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills The first step in Dewey’s original steps of reflective thinking presented on page 271 includes identifying a “felt difficulty.” Think of several problems that you are experiencing in your life, or have experienced. What is the “felt difficulty” of those problems? Once you’ve identified the “felt difficulty,” phrase the difficulty as a problem statement. FINDING A BALANCE BETWEEN GROUP STRUCTURE AND INTERACTION Objective 2 Define and differentiate between group structure and group interaction. Group Communication Principles Groups with either too much structure (a rigid agenda or one person dominating the flow of discussion) or too much interaction (unstructured talk that does not focus on clear issues or topics) is a less productive group. Achieving an appropriate balance between structure and interaction is a central goal of effective group discussion. Key Terms Structure 272 Interaction 272 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Using Interaction Process Analysis Sociologist Robert Bales significantly advanced the study of communication in small groups by developing a method of describing and analyzing the interaction that occurs in groups. Bales identified four major categories of interaction and further specified 12 subcategories of comments group members typically make during group discussion. Two of Bales’s major categories focus on social/emotional aspects of group conversation; the other two categories describe talk that focuses on completing the task. His categories are listed below.61 Positive Reactions 1. Shows solidarity, raises others’ status, gives help, rewards 2. Shows tension release, jokes, laughs, shows satisfaction 3. Shows agreement, shows passive acceptance, understands, concurs, complies Attempted Answers 4. Gives suggestion, direction, implying autonomy for others 5. Gives opinion, evaluation, analysis, expresses feeling, wish 6. Gives information, orientation, repeats, clarifies, confirms Questions 7. Asks for information, orientation, repetition, confirmation 8. Asks for opinion, evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling 9. Asks for suggestions, direction, possible ways of action Negative Reactions 10. Disagrees, shows passive rejection, formality, withholds help 11. Shows tension, asks for help, withdraws out of field 12. Shows antagonism, deflates others’ status, defends or asserts self Although it takes extensive training to gain maximum benefit from Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis, communication researchers and educators Alvin Goldberg and Carl Larson suggest that you can develop a simple version of Bales’s categories to describe group interaction.62 On the left side of a sheet of paper, list the 12 subcategories of comments. Next, draw vertical lines to create a column for each group member. As you listen to a group discussion, simply make a mark to code each piece of conversation made by each group member. If, for example, Bill makes a comment that indicates friendly support for a person or an idea, you would make a mark in Bill’s column on line 1 for “shows solidarity.” If Carmelita disagrees with Bill’s idea, you would make a mark in her column on line 10 (“disagrees”). You continue to code the group members’ comments until the end of the conversation. The key to using this method of analyzing group talk is to make sure you understand each of the 12 subcategories of interaction and can code them accurately. Each comment can be coded only once in only one category, so you have to make quick decisions as to how to code a group member’s comments. When you’re finished, you can total the number of marks you’ve made for each person. With total numbers in hand, you can calculate the percentage of the time each individual made comments. You can also total the number of types of comments the group members made by adding the number of marks made on each row. Calculate the percentage of time group members made comments from each subcategory. The resulting percentage for each of the 12 lines will let you see whether the group was more concerned with the task or more concerned with social/emotional issues. You can also see which of the 12 interaction categories was used most and least during the discussion. You can more accurately assess people’s comments if you videotape a group discussion and then watch the video while completing your analysis of the group; if necessary you can watch the video more than once. Group communication scholar Joann Keyton points out that the Bales Interaction Process Analysis system is an efficient way to analyze a group’s behavior because it offers a descriptive, quantitative measure based on what group members say.63 REFLECTIVE THINKING: THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING Objective 3 Use the steps and tools of reflective thinking to solve a problem in a small-group discussion. Group Communication Principles To help your group or team define and limit a problem, phrase it as a question. Do not start suggesting solutions until your group has thoroughly analyzed a problem. Consider using tools such as is/is not analysis, force-field analysis, journalist’s six questions, Pareto charts, and cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagrams to help your group analyze the problem. Formulate criteria for a good solution before you begin suggesting solutions. If the other group members agree, you may need to change the criteria you have selected during the analysis phase of reflective thinking. Make sure that reflective thinking is the best method for your group; another problem-solving approach may work better. To help make sure that everyone knows and follows through on his or her assignment, consider using an action chart or a flowchart. Key Terms Is/is not analysis 275 Journalist’s six questions 276 Pareto principle 276 SWOT analysis 277 Force-field analysis 279 Cause-and-effect diagram 280 Fishbone diagram 280 Criteria 282 T-chart 285 Prototype 285 Action chart 286 Flowchart 287 Reflect 288 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills Earthquake According to the Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook, there are certain things you should do if you experience an earthquake.64 Individually rank order the following suggestions from most important to least important. Then work with a small group to compare and revise your answers based on the collective wisdom of the group. Your instructor will give you the experts’ rankings. _______ If you are driving, stop, but carefully. _______ Check food and water supplies. _______ Check for gas leaks and damaged electrical wires. _______ Put on a pair of thick-soled shoes. _______ Be prepared for aftershocks. _______ If you are indoors, stay indoors. _______ Check for injuries and administer first aid. _______ Get out in the open if you are inside. _______ If you are in a mountainous area, watch out for landslides. QUESTION-ORIENTED APPROACHES TO PROBLEM SOLVING Objective 4 Apply the ideal-solution and single-question problem-solving methods to a group discussion. Group Communication Principles If you are the leader of a group, tell the group why you have selected either the ideal-solution format or the single-question approach to problem solving. Use the ideal-solution format to help the group come to agreement on the nature of the problem. Use the single-question format if you are sure that your group is capable of agreeing on the issues and on how they can be resolved. Provide members with copies of the questions used in the ideal-solution format or the single-question format; this will help to keep your discussion on track. Remind group members to address only those questions and issues that are relevant to the discussion. Key Terms Ideal-solution format 289 Single-question format 290 Practice Applying and Assessing Your Skills The Competent Group Communicator Assessment Form (Scoring instructions on page 300) Assessing Competencies of Problem-Solving Groups 65 Competencies are specific behaviors that group and team members perform (review Chapter 1, pages 1–35). The assessment form on pages 298–299 lists nine competencies organized into four general categories. Use the evaluation form to assess small-group communication competencies in a group or team discussion. Here’s how to use the form: 1. Observe a group or team that is attempting to solve a problem. Write the names of the group members at the top of the form. (If the group includes more than six group members, photocopy the form so that each group member can be evaluated.) 2. When using the form, first decide whether each group member has performed each competency. Circle NO if the group member was not observed performing the competency. Circle YES if you did observe the group member performing the competency (e.g., defining the problem, analyzing the problem, identifying criteria, and so on). 3. For each competency for which you circled YES, determine how effectively the competency was performed. Use the scale, which ranges from 0 to 3. 0 = This competency was performed, but it was performed inappropriately or inadequately. For example, the person observed tried to define a problem but did so poorly. 1 = Overall, performance of this competency was adequate. 2 = Overall, performance of this competency was good. 3 = Overall, performance of this competency was excellent. 4. Total the score for each group member in each of the four categories. If the competency was performed, the total number of points will range from 0 to 6 or 0 to 9. The higher the number of points, the better the individual performed on this competency. Problem-Oriented Competencies consist of items 1 and 2. These behaviors help the group or team member define and analyze the problem. Solution-Oriented Competencies include items 3, 4, and 5, with a point range from 0 to 9. These competencies focus on how well the team member helped develop and evaluate a solution to the problem. Discussion-Management Competencies, items 6 and 7, help the group or team remain focused or manage interaction. The points for this category range from 0 to 6. Relational Competencies are behaviors that focus on dealing with conflict and developing a positive, supportive group climate. Items 8 and 9 reflect this competency; points range from 0 to 6. 5. You can also assess the group’s or team’s ability to perform these competencies. The column marked “Group Assessment” can be used to record your overall impression of how effectively the group or team behaved. Circle NO if no one in the group performed a particular competency. Circle YES if at least one person in the group or team performed a competency. Then evaluate how well the entire group performed each competency, using the 0 to 3 scale. Sometimes it is difficult to make judgments about group competencies by just viewing a group discussion once. Many people find that it’s easier to videotape a group discussion so that you can observe the group discussion more than once.