problem solving among groups

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13 Leadership, Roles, and Problem Solving in Groups

Introduction

13.1 Group Member Roles

Task-related roles and behaviors.

Task roles and their related behaviors contribute directly to the group’s completion of a task or achievement of its goal or purpose. Task-related roles typically serve leadership, informational, or procedural functions. In this section, we will discuss the following roles and behaviors: task leader, expediter, information provider, information seeker, gatekeeper, and recorder.

Task Leader

Within any group, there may be a task leader. This person may have a high group status because of his or her maturity, problem-solving abilities, knowledge, and/or leadership experience and skills. This person acts to help the group complete its task (Cragan & Wright, 1991). This person may be a designated or emergent leader, but in either case, task leaders tend to talk more during group interactions than other group members and also tend to do more work in the group. Depending on the number of tasks a group has, there may be more than one task leader, especially if the tasks require different sets of skills or knowledge. Because of the added responsibilities of being a task leader, people in these roles may experience higher levels of stress. A task leader could lessen these stresses, however, through some of the maintenance role behaviors that will be discussed later.

We can divide task-leader behaviors two types: substantive and procedural (Pavitt, 1999). The substantive leader is the “idea person” who communicates “big picture” thoughts and suggestions that feed group discussion. The procedural leader is the person who gives the most guidance, perhaps following up on the ideas generated by the substantive leader. A skilled and experienced task leader may be able to perform both of these roles, but when the roles are filled by two different people, the person considered the procedural leader is more likely than the substantive leader to be viewed by members as the overall group leader. This indicates that task-focused groups assign more status to the person who actually guides the group toward the completion of the task (a “doer”) than the person who comes up with ideas (the “thinker”).

The expediter is a task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals in order to monitor the group’s progress (Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). An expediter doesn’t push group members mindlessly along toward the completion of their task; an expediter must have a good sense of when a topic has been sufficiently discussed or when a group’s extended focus on one area has led to diminishing returns. In such cases, the expediter may say, “Now that we’ve had a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of switching the office from PCs to Macs, which side do you think has more support?” or “We’ve spent half of this meeting looking for examples of what other libraries have done and haven’t found anything useful. Maybe we should switch gears so we can get something concrete done tonight.”

To avoid the perception that group members are being rushed, a skilled expediter can demonstrate good active-listening skills by paraphrasing what has been discussed and summarizing what has been accomplished in such a way that makes it easier for group members to see the need to move on.

Information Provider

The information provider role includes behaviors that are more evenly shared compared to other roles, as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). When group members meet, they each possess different types of information. Early group meetings may consist of group members taking turns briefing each other on their area of expertise. In other situations, one group member may be chosen because of his or her specialized knowledge. This person may be the primary information provider for all other group members. For example, one of our colleagues was selected to serve on a university committee reviewing our undergraduate learning goals. Since her official role was to serve as the “faculty expert” on the subcommittee related to speaking, she played a more central information-provider function for the group during most of the initial meetings. Since other people on the subcommittee were not as familiar with speaking and its place within higher education curriculum, it made sense that information-providing behaviors were not as evenly distributed.

Information Seeker

The information seeker asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to the group’s task Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). The information sought may include facts or group member opinions. In general, information seekers ask questions for clarification, but they can also ask questions that help provide an important evaluative function. Most groups could benefit from more critically oriented information-seeking behaviors. As our discussion of groupthink notes, critical questioning helps increase the quality of ideas and group outcomes and helps avoid groupthink. By asking for more information, people have to defend (in a non-adversarial way) and/or support their claims, which can help ensure that the information is credible, relevant, and thoroughly considered. When information seeking or questioning occurs because of poor listening skills, it risks negatively affecting the group. Skilled information providers and seekers are also good active listeners. They increase all group members’ knowledge when they paraphrase and ask clarifying questions about the information presented.

The gatekeeper manages the flow of conversation in a group in order to achieve an appropriate balance so that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). The gatekeeper may prompt others to provide information by saying something like “Let’s each share one idea we have for a movie to show during Black History Month.” He or she may also help correct an imbalance between members who have provided much information already and members who have been quiet by saying something like “Aretha, we’ve heard a lot from you today. Let us hear from someone else. Beau, what are your thoughts on Aretha’s suggestion?” Gatekeepers should be cautious about “calling people out” or at least making them feel that way. Instead of scolding someone for not participating, the gatekeeper should be ask a member to contribute something specific instead of just asking if that person has anything to add. Since gatekeepers make group members feel included, they also service the relational aspects of the group.

The recorder takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. The recorder is the only role that is essentially limited to one person at a time since in most cases it would not be necessary or beneficial to have more than one person recording. At less formal meetings, there may be no recorder, while at formal meetings there is usually a person who records meeting minutes, which are an overview of what occurred at the meeting. Each committee will have different rules or norms regarding the level of detail within and availability of the minutes.

Maintenance Roles and Behaviors

Maintenance roles and their corresponding behaviors function to create and maintain social cohesion and fulfill the interpersonal needs of group members. All these role behaviors require strong and sensitive interpersonal skills. The maintenance roles we will discuss in this section include social-emotional leader, supporter, tension releaser, harmonizer, and interpreter.

Social-Emotional Leader

The social-emotional leader within a group may perform a variety of maintenance roles and is generally someone who is well liked by the other group members and whose role behaviors complement but do not compete with the task leader. The social-emotional leader may also reassure and support the task leader when he or she is stressed (Koch, 2013). In general, the social-emotional leader is a reflective thinker who has good perception skills that he or she uses to analyze the group dynamics and climate and then initiate the appropriate role behaviors to maintain a positive climate. This is not a role that shifts from person to person. While all members of the group perform some maintenance role behaviors at various times, the socioemotional leader reliably functions to support group members and maintain a positive relational climate. Social-emotional leadership functions can actually become detrimental to the group and lead to less satisfaction among members when they view maintenance behaviors as redundant or as too distracting from the task (Pavitt, 1999).

The role of supporter is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group members and provide emotional support as needed (Koch, 2013). The supporter’s work primarily occurs in one-on-one exchanges that are more intimate and in-depth than the exchanges that take place during full group meetings. While many group members may make supporting comments publicly at group meetings, these comments are typically superficial and/or brief. A supporter uses active empathetic listening skills to connect with group members who may seem down or frustrated by saying something like “Tayesha, you seemed kind of down today. Is there anything you’d like to talk about?” Supporters also follow up on previous conversations with group members to maintain the connections they have already established by saying things like “Alan, I remember you said your mom is having surgery this weekend. I hope it goes well. Let me know if you need anything.”

Tension Releaser

The tension releaser is someone who is naturally funny and sensitive to the personalities of the group and the dynamics of any given situation and who uses these qualities to manage the frustration level of the group (Koch, 2013). Being funny is not enough to fulfill this role, as jokes or comments could indeed be humorous to other group members but are delivered at an inopportune time, which ultimately creates rather than releases tension. The healthy use of humor by the tension releaser performs the same maintenance function as the empathy employed by the harmonizer or the social-emotional leader, but it is less intimate and is typically directed toward the whole group instead of just one person.

Group members who help manage the various types of group conflict that emerge during group communication plays the harmonizer role (Koch, 2013). They keep their eyes and ears open for signs of conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates. For example, the harmonizer may sense that one group member’s critique of another member’s idea was not received positively, and he or she may be able to rephrase the critique in a more constructive way, which can help diminish the other group member’s defensiveness. Harmonizers also deescalate conflict once it has already started—for example, by suggesting that the group take a break and then mediating between group members in a side conversation.

These actions can help prevent conflict from spilling over into other group interactions. In cases where the whole group experiences conflict, the harmonizer may help lead the group in perception-checking discussions that help members see an issue from multiple perspectives. For a harmonizer to be effective, he or she must be viewed as impartial and committed to the group as a whole rather than to one side, person, or faction within the larger group. A special kind of harmonizer that helps manage cultural differences within the group is the interpreter.

Interpreter

An interpreter helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared (Koch, 2013). Just as an interpreter at the United Nations acts as a bridge between two different languages, the interpreter can bridge identity differences between group members. Interpreters can help perform the other maintenance roles discussed with a special awareness of and sensitivity toward cultural differences. Interpreters, because of their cultural sensitivity, may also take a proactive role to help address conflict before it emerges—for example, by taking a group member aside and explaining why his or her behavior or comments may be perceived as offensive.

Negative Roles and Behaviors

Group communication scholars began exploring the negative side of group member roles more than sixty years ago (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Studying these negative roles can help us analyze group interactions and potentially better understand why some groups are more successful than others are. It is important to acknowledge that we all perform some negative behaviors within groups but that those behaviors do not necessarily constitute a role. A person may temporarily monopolize a discussion to bring attention to his or her idea. If that behavior gets the attention of the group members and makes them realize they were misinformed or headed in a negative direction, then that behavior may have been warranted. Group members may enact negative behaviors with varying degrees of intensity and regularity, and their effects may range from mild annoyance to group failure. In general, the effects grow increasingly negative as they increase in intensity and frequency.

Self-Centered Roles Central Negative

The central negative argues against most of the ideas and proposals discussed in the group and often emerges because of a leadership challenge during group formation. The failed attempt to lead the group can lead to feelings of resentment toward the leader and/or the purpose of the group, which then manifest in negative behaviors that delay, divert, or block the group’s progress toward achieving its goal. This scenario is unfortunate because the central negative is typically a motivated and intelligent group member who can benefit the group if properly handled by the group leader or other members. Group communication scholars suggest that the group leader or leaders actively incorporate central negatives into group tasks and responsibilities to make them feel valued and to help diminish any residual anger, disappointment, or hurt feelings from the leadership conflict (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). Otherwise, the central negative will continue to argue against the proposals and decisions of the group, even when they may agree. In some cases, the central negative may unintentionally serve a beneficial function if his or her criticisms prevent groupthink.

Monopolizer

The monopolizer is a group member who makes excessive verbal contributions, preventing equal participation by other group members. In short, monopolizers like to hear the sound of their own voice and do not follow typical norms for conversational turn taking. Some people who are well-informed, charismatic, and competent communicators can get away with impromptu lectures and long stories, but monopolizers do not possess the magnetic qualities of such people. A group member’s excessive verbal contributions are more likely to be labeled as monopolizing when they are not related to the task or when they provide unnecessary or redundant elaboration. Some monopolizers do not intentionally speak for longer than they should. Instead, they think they are making a genuine contribution to the group. These folks likely lack sensitivity to nonverbal cues, or they would see that other group members are tired of listening or annoyed. Other monopolizers just like to talk and do not care what others think. Some may be trying to make up for a lack of knowledge or experience. This type of monopolizer is best described as a dilettante, or an amateur who tries to pass himself or herself off as an expert.

Several subgroups of behaviors fall under the monopolizer’s role. The “stage hog” monopolizes discussion with excessive verbal contributions and engages in one-upping and narcissistic listening. Gaining an advantage over is a spotlight-stealing strategy in which people try to verbally “out-do” others by saying something like “You think that’s bad? Listen to what happened to me!” They also listen to others in order to find something they can connect back to themselves, not to understand the message. The stage hog is like the diva that refuses to leave the stage to let the next performer begin. Unlike a monopolizer, who may engage in his or her behaviors unknowingly, stage hogs are usually aware of what they are doing.

The “egghead” monopolizes the discussion with excessive contributions based in actual knowledge. However, those contributions exceed the level of understanding of other group members or the needs of the group (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The egghead is different from the dilettante monopolizer discussed earlier because this person has genuine knowledge and expertise on a subject, which may be useful to the group. Nevertheless, like the monopolizer and stage hog, the egghead’s excessive contributions draw attention away from the task, slow the group down, and may contribute to a negative group climate. The egghead may be like an absentminded professor who is smart but lacks the social sensitivity to tell when he or she has said enough and is now starting to annoy other group members. This type of egghead naively believes that other group members care as much about the subject as he or she does.

The second type of egghead is more pompous and monopolizes the discussion to flaunt his or her intellectual superiority. While the group may tolerate the first type of egghead to a point, the group may perceive the second type of egghead more negatively and as one who will hurt the group. In general, the egghead’s advanced subject knowledge and excessive contributions can hurt the group’s potential for synergy, since other group members may defer to the egghead expert, which can diminish the creativity that comes from outside and non-expert perspectives.

13.2 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Group problem solving.

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes. Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

• An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there is not a problem.
• A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These things stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision-making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

• Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
• Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others do. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may require more creativity. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets due to funding cuts in nearly every sector. When group members are not familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done. They may want to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order implement their solution successfully. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution. They may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that does not have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who or what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification?

At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step, a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, do not evaluate solutions at this point, only propose and clarify. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it? It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution.

Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision-making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several similar models for problem solving, groups can use many varied decision-making techniques. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until they reach a consensus. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the group reaches a final decision, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group agrees. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or a delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene? Will a new group be formed?

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others are. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision-making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision-making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings.

Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because group members expose themselves to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision-making, perhaps thinking that they will work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. Therefore, in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision-making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming Before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people do not follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you will recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. Anyone in the group can initiate the short warm-up. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session. This session should not last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. In order to realize the fourth rule, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there is not really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract, it may be eliminated. As a caution, though, it may be wise not to throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion Before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually, list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This should not take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they should not evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they have finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members could now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before making a decision (Schippers & Rus, 2021). A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread among all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group did not have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who did not. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process.

This type of decision-making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this is not a sign of groupthink. More typically, groups reach consensus only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that is ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

[table id=10 /]

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision-Making

A group’s situational context affects decision-making (Franken & Muris, 2005). One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision-making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members cannot know what other group members are thinking, whether they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. Therefore, the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision-making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation, walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Cultural Context and Decision-Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, culturally heterogeneous groups perform better than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but since all groups experience conflict, this is not solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we have learned about already in this text can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making (Yates & de Oliveira, 2016). Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision-making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (i.e., indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication (like negotiations) begins or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision-making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. Therefore, if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone does not like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group (Hentschel, Heilman, & Peus, 2019). Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters.

Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which does not take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did.

Now, instead of assuming biological sex is a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is common for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their mid-60s to mid-80s, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
• The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to mid-60s, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to mid-40s, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just entering into the workforce and have been greatly affected by recent economic crises. They are experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions.

Figure 13.1: Social-emotional leaders are reflective thinkers who use their perception skills to analyze group dynamics and maintain a positive climate. Dim Hou. 2019. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/2P6Q7_uiDr0

Figure 13.2: Common components of group problems. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 13.3: The group problem-solving process. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 13.4: Brainstorming is a good way to generate possible solutions to a problem. Below are some suggestions to make brainstorming more of a decision-making method. Monstera. 2021. Pexels license . https://www.pexels.com/photo/excited-black-woman-using-laptop-9429552/

Figure 13.5: Culturally heterogeneous groups perform better than more homogenous groups. fauxels. 2019. Pexels license . https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-people-near-wooden-table-3184418/

Figure 13.6: It is common to have different generations working together in an organizational setting. Rendy Novantino. 2021. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/wJoRe38l8fc

Section 13.1

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues 4(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x

Bormann, E. G., & Bormann, N.C., (1988). Effective small group communication ( 4th ed.). Burgess International Group.

Burke, C. S., Georganta, E., & Marlow, S. (2019). A bottom up perspective to understanding the dynamics of team roles in mission critical teams. Frontiers in psychology , 10 , 1322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01322

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1991). Communication in small group discussions: An integrated approach (3rd ed.). West Publishing.

Koch, A. (2013, October 24). Individual roles in groups . https://prezi.com/gmbfihtzyjg4/individual-roles-in-groups/

Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication Theory and research (pp. 313-334). Sage.

Section 13.2

Adams, K., and Galanes, G. (2009). Communicating in groups: Applications and skills (7th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.

Clarke, G. (1970, June 29). The silent generation revisited. Time, 95 (26), 38-40.

Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 7 (4), 466–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637100700404

Franken, I. H. A., and Muris, P. (2005). Individual differences in decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (5), 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.004

Haslett, B.B., Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make? The effects of individuals, culture, and group composition. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 115–138). Sage.

Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (2004). Groups: Theory and experience (7th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Osborn, A. F. (1959). Applied imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Schippers, M. C., & Rus, D. C. (2021). Majority decision-making works best under conditions of leadership ambiguity and shared task representations. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 519295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.519295

Stanton, C. (2009, November 3). How to deliver group presentations: The unified team approach . http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach/

Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030002006

Yates, J. F., & de Oliveira, S. (2016). Culture and decision making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes , 136 , 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.003

A task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals in order to monitor the group’s progress

This role includes behaviors that are more evenly shared compared to other roles, as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences

The person who has this task-related role asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to the group’s task

This person manages the flow of conversation in a group in order to achieve an appropriate balance so that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way

The person who takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. This role is the only role that is limited to one person at a time

A maintenance role that is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group members and provide emotional support as needed

Group members who help manage the various types of group conflict that emerge during group communication, they keep their eyes and ears open for signs of conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates

This person helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared

A group member who makes excessive verbal contributions preventing equal participation by other group members. Can include the “egghead” and the “stage hog.”

This technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members

A commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before making the decision

A decision making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members

A decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision

Communication in the Real World Copyright © by Faculty members in the School of Communication Studies, James Madison University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

CFAES COVID-19 Resources:    Safe and Healthy Buckeyes   |   COVID-19 Hub   |   CFAES Calendar

Ohio State University Extension

Search form

Group Problem Solving Process

Organizational challenges are many times disruptive to productivity. Group problem solving is the process of bringing together stakeholders who through their analytical decision making abilities can influence the outcome of the problem. The use of groups in problem solving is encouraged as groups tend to evaluate diverse solutions and action plans. The core objectives of the group are identifying the problem and developing solutions. This five-step systematic group problem solving process provides a defined strategy for a teamwork approach to generating creative and workable resolutions.

Process Description

Have you ever tried to get a group of people to agree on one answer to a problem? It's nearly impossible. However, there are positive approaches to this issue that anyone can employ with some minimal training and review. This project outlines a one-hour group problem solving technique that you can use with your organization. It helps clarify issues and provides an outline of actionable solutions.

Group Problem Solving Process Outline

1. define the problem.

Provide history relevant to the problem. Make a comparison: how are things now versus the way you would like them to be? How long has the problem existed? How frequently does it occur? Who is affected by the problem?

2. Determine Causes

Look for the cause of the gap between the present (what's now) and the desired (future) state or resolution.

3. Develop Alternative Approaches

Brainstorm. (Write exactly what is said. Capturing specific words can be powerful.) Make a list of as many possible solutions as you can. Do NOT judge correctness or feasibility here. Just list everything.

4. Assess the Consequences

Ask what possible results may come from each alternative. Who is affected? Who pays? Are there uncontrollable challenges? 

5. Develop Action Plans

Identify what you want success to look like. Use the Action Planning Worksheet to choose feasible alternatives that are acceptable to the group. Note: This is where most of the work is done!

Questioning Approach

Below are some additional, specific questions that you may use to help guide the process. As you move through each section, allow your group to take sufficient time to think critically before moving on.

Begin this portion of the exercise by asking people to write individually on an index card what they think the problem is. This may seem redundant or simplistic for some seemingly obvious problems (e.g., budget shortfall). However, individual responses may point to confounding issues, related problems, or causative items.

After writing individually, ask everyone to share. (If it's a very sensitive issue, collect the cards, shuffle the cards, and then ask one person to read them.)

• How are things now versus the way you would like them to be?
• How long has the problem existed?
• How frequently does it occur?
• Who is affected by the problem?
• Why does this problem exist?
• What needs to be changed in both the immediate future and for the long term?

3. Develop Alternative Approaches: What is feasible?

• Based on the outlined causes, what first step could we take to address the issue?
• What else could we do?
• Can the problem be handled by internal resources? Do we need outside/expert assistance?
• Are personnel and funds available?
• Does sufficient data exist to make a plan?
• Can the needed data be gathered within the time available?
• Does the issue involve large costs or major consequences for the organization?
• Who or what will be affected by this solution?
• What are the possible side effects . . . immediate and long-run?
• What would be the likely consequences of this solution?
• What would be the reaction of [citizens in the community/employees/patrons/customers]?
• Who would complain?
• Who would be glad? Why?
• Use the Action Planning Worksheet to choose feasible alternatives that are acceptable to the group.
• What would be accepted as evidence of its success?

Conclusions and Recommendations

The step-by-step process outlined in this fact sheet can help lead you to a successful outcome for even the most complicated group problems. Results are especially effective when using a neutral, skilled facilitator. A facilitator can come from within the group but runs the risk of inserting influence and suggestion. The best-case scenario is a facilitator who understands the group, understands the problem, and has no direct stake in the solution. The role of the facilitator is to assist the group in performing more effectively (Keltner, 1989).

Drawing out group members to generate potential solutions is central to problem solving, just as long as it's managed and facilitated well. There should be no criticism of ideas, and novel or seemingly unusual ideas should be encouraged. Involving all group members in the process is critical if everyone is to buy into the final solution. The best approach to making this work smoothly is to establish formal rules for positive participation.

When a large group is involved in the decision making, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) may be used in conjunction with this outlined process. The NGT is a weighted ranking method that allows a group to generate and prioritize issues. The procedure encourages balanced participation and creates a quantitative output.

With any problem solving process, defining the problem may be the most important, but likely the most difficult step. This forces the group to collectively recognize the scope of the problem and need to devise a solution. And yet, if the group is facilitated through the process of solving a problem and is successful in developing an action plan, but does not implement the plan, all efforts are for naught.

Bolton, Elizabeth. 2009.  IFAS Leadership Development: Problem Solving in Groups . IFAS Extension. University of Florida. FCS9064.

Keltner, S. 1989.  Facilitation: Catalyst for group problem solving . Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 1. Sage Publications.

Rebori, Marlene K. 1997.  Effective Problem-Solving Techniques for Groups.  Cooperative Extension. University of Nevada. Fact Sheet 97-26.

Scholl, Richard W. 2003.  Group Decision Making and Problem Solving . Charles T. Schmidt, Jr. Labor Research Center. University of Rhode Island.

Adapted from Conone, R., Brown, D., and Willis, R. (no date). Understanding the Process, CDFS-13. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. Originally available online at ohioline.osu.edu/bc-fact/0013.html

Additional Resources: Seven Steps to Problem Solving,  pacwrc.pitt.edu/Curriculum/521Strength-BasedSolution-FocusedSupervision/Handouts/HO%206%207%20Key%20S_F%20Strategies.pdf

CFAES provides research and related educational programs to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis. For more information, visit cfaesdiversity.osu.edu. For an accessible format of this publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility.

Copyright © 2015, The Ohio State University

2 Cooperation

From the noba project by  jake p. moskowitz  and  paul k. piff university of california, irvine.

Introduction

People cooperate with others throughout their life. Whether on the playground with friends, at home with family, or at work with colleagues, cooperation is a natural instinct (Keltner et al. 2014). Children as young as 14 months cooperate with others on joint tasks (Warneken et al. 2007). Humans’ closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, maintain long-term cooperative relationships as well, sharing resources and caring for each other’s young (de Waal & Lanting, 1997; Langergraber et al. 2007). Ancient animal remains found near early human settlements suggest that our ancestors hunted in cooperative groups (Mithen, 1996). Cooperation, it seems, is embedded in our evolutionary heritage.

Yet, cooperation can also be difficult to achieve; there are often breakdowns in people’s ability to work effectively in teams, or in their willingness to collaborate with others. Even with issues that can only be solved through large-scale cooperation, such as climate change and world hunger, people can have difficulties joining forces with others to take collective action. Psychologists have identified numerous individual and situational factors that influence the effectiveness of cooperation across many areas of life. From the trust that people place in others to the lines they draw between “us” and “them,” many different processes shape cooperation. This chapter will explore these individual, situational, and cultural influences on cooperation.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Imagine that you are a participant in a social experiment. As you sit down, you are told that you will be playing a game with another person in a separate room. The other participant is also part of the experiment but the two of you will never meet. In the experiment, there is the possibility that you will be awarded some money. Both you and your unknown partner are required to make a choice: either choose to “cooperate,” maximizing your combined reward, or “defect,” (not cooperate) and thereby maximize your individual reward. The choice you make, along with that of the other participant, will result in one of three unique outcomes to this task, illustrated below in Figure 1. If you and your partner  both cooperate  (1), you will each receive $5. If you and your partner  both defect  (2), you will each receive $2. However, if  one partner defects and the other partner cooperates  (3), the defector will receive $8, while the cooperator will receive nothing. Remember, you and your partner cannot discuss your strategy. Which would you choose? Striking out on your own promises big rewards but you could also lose everything. Cooperating, on the other hand, offers the best benefit for the most people but requires a high level of trust.

This scenario, in which two people independently choose between cooperation and defection, is known as the  prisoner’s dilemma . It gets its name from the situation in which two prisoners who have committed a crime are given the opportunity to either (A) both confess their crime (and get a moderate sentence), (B) rat out their accomplice (and get a lesser sentence), or (C) both remain silent (and avoid punishment altogether). Psychologists use various forms of the prisoner’s dilemma scenario to study self-interest and cooperation. Whether framed as a monetary game or a prison game, the prisoner’s dilemma illuminates a conflict at the core of many decisions to cooperate: it pits the motivation to maximize  personal reward  against the motivation to maximize  gains for the group  (you and your partner combined).

For someone trying to maximize his or her own personal reward, the most “rational” choice is to defect (not cooperate), because defecting always results in a larger personal reward, regardless of the partner’s choice. However, when the two participants view their partnership as a joint effort (such as a friendly relationship), cooperating is the best strategy of all, since it provides the largest combined sum of money ($10—which they share), as opposed to partial cooperation ($8), or mutual defection ($4). In other words, although defecting represents the “best” choice from an individual perspective, it is also the worst choice to make for the group as a whole.

This divide between personal and collective interests is a key obstacle that prevents people from cooperating. Think back to our earlier definition of cooperation is when multiple partners work together toward a common goal that will benefit everyone. As is frequent in these types of scenarios, even though cooperation may benefit the whole group, individuals are often able to earn even larger, personal rewards by defecting—as demonstrated in the prisoner’s dilemma example above.

You can see a small, real-world example of the prisoner’s dilemma phenomenon at live music concerts. At venues with seating, many audience members will choose to stand, hoping to get a better view of the musicians onstage. As a result, the people sitting directly behind those now-standing people are also forced to stand to see the action onstage. This creates a chain reaction in which the entire audience now has to stand, just to see over the heads of the crowd in front of them. While choosing to stand may improve one’s own concert experience, it creates a literal barrier for the rest of the audience, hurting the overall experience of the group.

Simple models of  rational self-interest predict 100% defection in cooperative tasks. That is, if people were only interested in benefiting themselves, we would always expect to see selfish behavior. Instead, there is a surprising tendency to cooperate in the prisoner’s dilemma and similar tasks (Batson & Moran, 1999; Oosterbeek et al., 2004). Given the clear benefits to defect, why then do some people choose to cooperate, whereas others choose to defect?

Individual Differences in Cooperation

Social value orientation.

One key factor related to individual differences in cooperation is the extent to which people value not only their own outcomes, but also the outcomes of others.  Social value orientation (SVO) describes people’s preferences when dividing important resources between themselves and others (Messick & McClintock, 1968). A person might, for example, generally be competitive with others, or cooperative, or self-sacrificing. People with different social values differ in the importance they place on their own positive outcomes relative to the outcomes of others. For example, you might give your friend gas money because she drives you to school, even though that means you will have less spending money for the weekend. In this example, you are demonstrating a cooperative orientation.

People generally fall into one of three categories of SVO: cooperative, individualistic, or competitive . While most people want to bring about positive outcomes for all (cooperative orientation), certain types of people are less concerned about the outcomes of others (individualistic), or even seek to undermine others in order to get ahead (competitive orientation).

Are you curious about your own orientation? One technique psychologists use to sort people into one of these categories is to have them play a series of  decomposed games —short laboratory exercises that involve making a choice from various distributions of resources between oneself and an “other.” Consider the example shown in Figure 2, which offers three different ways to distribute a valuable resource (such as money). People with  competitive  SVOs, who try to maximize their relative advantage over others, are most likely to pick option A. People with  cooperative  SVOs, who try to maximize joint gain for both themselves and others, are more likely to split the resource evenly, picking option B. People with  individualistic  SVOs, who always maximize gains to the self, regardless of how it affects others, will most likely pick option C.

Researchers have found that a person’s SVO predicts how cooperative he or she is in both laboratory experiments and the outside world. For example, in one laboratory experiment, groups of participants were asked to play a  commons dilemma game. In this game, participants each took turns drawing from a central collection of points to be exchanged for real money at the end of the experiment. These points represented a  common-pool resource  for the group, like valuable goods or services in society (such as farm land, ground water, and air quality) that are freely accessible to everyone but prone to overuse and degradation. Participants were told that, while the common-pool resource would gradually replenish after the end of every turn, taking too much of the resource too quickly would eventually deplete it. The researchers found that participants with cooperative SVOs withdrew fewer resources from the common-pool than those with competitive and individualistic SVOs, indicating a greater willingness to cooperate with others and act in a way that is sustainable for the group (Kramer et al., 1986; Roch & Samuelson, 1997).

Research has also shown that people with cooperative SVOs are more likely to commute to work using public transportation—an act of cooperation that can help reduce carbon emissions—rather than drive themselves, compared to people with competitive and individualistic SVOs (Van Vugt, Meertens, & Van Lange, 1995; Van Vugt et al., 1996). People with cooperative SVOs also more frequently engage in behavior intended to help others, such as volunteering and giving money to charity (McClintock & Allison, 1989; Van Lange et al., 2007). Taken together, these findings show that people with cooperative SVOs act with greater consideration for the overall well-being of others and the group as a whole, using resources in moderation and taking more effortful measures (like using public transportation to protect the environment) to benefit the group.

Empathic Ability

Empathy   is the ability to feel and understand another’s emotional experience. When we empathize with someone else, we take on that person’s perspective, imagining the world from his or her point of view and vicariously experiencing his or her emotions (Davis, 1994; Goetz et al., 2010). Research has shown that when people empathize with their partner, they act with greater cooperation and overall  altruism —the desire to help the partner, even at a potential cost to the self. People that can experience and understand the emotions of others are better able to work with others in groups, earning higher job performance ratings on average from their supervisors, even after adjusting for different types of work and other aspects of personality (Côté & Miners, 2006).

When empathizing with a person in distress, the natural desire to help is often expressed as a desire to cooperate. In one study, just before playing an economic game with a partner in another room, participants were given a note revealing that their partner had just gone through a rough breakup and needed some cheering up. While half of the subjects were urged by the experimenters to “remain objective and detached,” the other half were told to “try and imagine how the other person feels.” Though both groups received the same information about their partner, those who were encouraged to engage in empathy—by actively experiencing their partner’s emotions—acted with greater cooperation in the economic game (Batson & Moran, 1999). The researchers also found that people who empathized with their partners were more likely to act cooperatively, even after being told that their partner had already made a choice to  not  cooperate (Batson & Ahmad, 2001)! Evidence of the link between empathy and cooperation has even been found in studies of preschool children (Marcus et al., 1979). From a very early age, emotional understanding can foster cooperation.

Although empathizing with a partner can lead to more cooperation between two people, it can also undercut cooperation within larger groups. In groups, empathizing with a single person can lead people to abandon broader cooperation in favor of helping only the target individual. In one study, participants were asked to play a cooperative game with three partners. In the game, participants were asked to (A) donate resources to a central pool, (B) donate resources to a specific group member, or (C) keep the resources for themselves. According to the rules, all donations to the central pool would be increased by 50% then distributed evenly, resulting in a net gain to the entire group. Objectively, this might seem to be the best option. However, when participants were encouraged to imagine the feelings of one of their partners said to be in distress, they were more likely to donate their tickets to that partner and not engage in cooperation with the group—rather than remaining detached and objective (Batson et al., 1995). Though empathy can create strong cooperative bonds between individuals, it can sometimes lead to actions that, despite being well-intentioned, end up undermining the group’s best interests.

Situational Influences of Cooperation

Communication and commitment.

Open communication between people is one of the best ways to promote cooperation (Dawes et al., 1977; Dawes, 1988). This is because communication provides an opportunity to size up the trustworthiness of others. It also affords us a chance to prove our own trustworthiness, by verbally committing to cooperate with others. Since cooperation requires people to enter a   state of vulnerability  and trust with partners, we are very sensitive to the social cues and interactions of potential partners before deciding to cooperate with them.

In one line of research, groups of participants were allowed to chat for five minutes before playing a multi-round “public goods” game. During the chats, the players were allowed to discuss game strategies and make verbal commitments about their in-game actions. While some groups were able to reach a consensus on a strategy (e.g., “always cooperate”), other groups failed to reach a consensus within their allotted five minutes or even picked strategies that ensured  non cooperation (e.g., “every person for themselves”). The researchers found that when group members made explicit commitments to each other to cooperate, they ended up honoring those commitments and acting with greater cooperation. Interestingly, the effect of face-to-face verbal commitments persisted even when the cooperation game itself was completely anonymous (Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1994; Kerr et al., 1997). This suggests that those who explicitly commit to cooperate are driven not by the fear of external punishment by group members, but by their own personal desire to honor such commitments. In other words, once people make a specific promise to cooperate, they are driven by “that still, small voice”—the voice of their own inner conscience—to fulfill that commitment (Kerr et al., 1997).

When it comes to cooperation, trust is key (Chaudhuri et al., 2002; Parks et al., 1996). Working with others toward a common goal requires a level of faith that our partners will repay our hard work and generosity, and not take advantage of us for their own selfish gains. Social trust, or the belief that another person’s actions will be beneficial to one’s own interests (Kramer, 1999), enables people to work together as a single unit, pooling their resources to accomplish more than they could individually. Trusting others, however, depends on their actions and reputation.

One common example of the difficulties in trusting others that you might recognize from being a student occurs when you are assigned a group project. Many students dislike group projects because they worry about social loafing —the way that one person expends less effort but still benefits from the efforts of the group. Imagine, for example, that you and five other students are assigned to work together on a difficult class project. At first, you and your group members split the work up evenly. As the project continues, however, you notice that one member of your team isn’t doing his “fair share.” He fails to show up to meetings, his work is sloppy, and he seems generally uninterested in contributing to the project. After a while, you might begin to suspect that this student is trying to get by with minimal effort, perhaps assuming others will pick up the slack. Your group now faces a difficult choice: either join the slacker and abandon all work on the project, causing it to collapse, or keep cooperating and allow for the possibility that the uncooperative student may receive a decent grade for others’ work.

If this scenario sounds familiar to you, you’re not alone. Economists call this situation the  free rider problem -when individuals benefit from the cooperation of others without contributing anything in return (Grossman & Hart, 1980). Although these sorts of actions may benefit the free rider in the short-term, free riding can have a negative impact on a person’s social reputation over time. In the above example, for instance, the “free riding” student may develop a reputation as lazy or untrustworthy, leading others to be less willing to work with him or her in the future.

Indeed, research has shown that a poor reputation for cooperation can serve as a warning sign for others  not  to cooperate with the person in disrepute. For example, in one experiment involving a group economic game, participants seen as being uncooperative were punished harshly by their fellow participants. According to the rules of the game, individuals took turns being either a “donor” or a “receiver” over the course of multiple rounds. If donors chose to give up a small sum of actual money, receivers would receive a slightly larger sum, resulting in an overall net gain. However, unbeknownst to the group, one participant was secretly instructed  never  to donate. After just a few rounds of play, this individual was effectively shunned by the rest of the group, receiving almost zero donations from the other members (Milinski et al., 2001). When someone is seen being consistently uncooperative, other people have no incentive to trust him/her, resulting in a collapse of cooperation.

On the other hand, people are more likely to cooperate with others who have a good reputation for cooperation and are therefore deemed trustworthy. In one study, people played a group economic game similar to the one described above: over multiple rounds, they took turns choosing whether to donate to other group members. Over the course of the game, donations were more frequently given to individuals who had been generous in earlier rounds of the game (Wedekind & Milinski, 2000). In other words, individuals seen cooperating with others were afforded a reputational advantage, earning them more partners willing to cooperate and a larger overall monetary reward.

Group Identification

Another factor that can impact cooperation is a person’s  social identity , or the extent to which he or she identifies as a member of a particular social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979/1986). People can identify with groups of all shapes and sizes: a group might be relatively small, such as a local high school class, or very large, such as a national citizenship or a political party. While these groups are often bound together by shared goals and values, they can also form according to seemingly arbitrary qualities, such as musical taste, hometown, or even completely randomized assignment, such as a coin toss (Tajfel et al., 1971; Bigler et al., 2001; Locksley et al. 1980). When members of a group place a high value on their group membership, their identity (the way they view themselves) can be shaped in part by the goals and values of that group.

Research shows that when people’s group identity is emphasized (for example, when laboratory participants are referred to as “group members” rather than “individuals”), they are less likely to act selfishly in a commons dilemma game. In such experiments, so-called “group members” withdraw fewer resources, with the outcome of promoting the sustainability of the group (Brewer & Kramer, 1986). In one study, students who strongly identified with their university were less likely to leave a cooperative group of fellow students when given an attractive option to exit (Van Vugt & Hart, 2004). In addition, the strength of a person’s identification with a group or organization is a key driver behind participation in large-scale cooperative efforts, such as collective action in political and workers’ groups (Klandersman, 2002), and engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors (Cropanzano & Byrne, 2000).

Emphasizing group identity is not without its costs: although it can increase cooperation within  groups, it can also undermine cooperation  between  groups. Researchers have found that groups interacting with other groups are more competitive and less cooperative than individuals interacting with other individuals, a phenomenon known as  interindividual-intergroup discontinuity  (Schopler &; Insko, 1999; Wildschut et al. 2003). For example, groups interacting with other groups displayed greater self-interest and reduced cooperation in a prisoner’s dilemma game than did individuals completing the same tasks with other individuals (Insko et al., 1987). Such problems with trust and cooperation are largely due to people’s general reluctance to cooperate with members of an outgroup, or those outside the boundaries of one’s own social group (Allport, 1954; Van Vugt et al., 2000).  Outgroups  do not have to be explicit rivals for this effect to take place. Indeed, in one study, simply telling groups of participants that other groups preferred a different style of painting led them to behave less cooperatively than pairs of individuals completing the same task (Insko et al., 2005). Though a strong group identity can bind individuals within the group together, it can also drive divisions between different groups, reducing overall trust and cooperation on a larger scope.

Under the right circumstances, however, even rival groups can be turned into cooperative partners in the presence of superordinate goals. In a classic demonstration of this phenomenon, Muzafer Sherif and colleagues observed the cooperative and competing behaviors of two groups of twelve-year-old boys at a summer camp in Robber’s Cave State Park, in Oklahoma (Sherif et al. 1961). The twenty-two boys in the study were all carefully interviewed to determine that none of them knew each other beforehand. Importantly, Sherif and colleagues kept both groups unaware of each other’s existence, arranging for them to arrive at separate times and occupy different areas of the camp. Within each group, the participants quickly bonded and established their own group identity—“The Eagles” and “The Rattlers”—identifying leaders and creating flags decorated with their own group’s name and symbols.

For the next phase of the experiment, the researchers revealed the existence of each group to the other, leading to reactions of anger, territorialism, and verbal abuse between the two. This behavior was further compounded by a series of competitive group activities, such as baseball and tug-of-war, leading the two groups to engage in even more spiteful behavior: The Eagles set fire to The Rattlers’ flag, and The Rattlers retaliated by ransacking The Eagles’ cabin, overturning beds and stealing their belongings. Eventually, the two groups refused to eat together in the same dining hall, and they had to be physically separated to avoid further conflict.

However, in the final phase of the experiment, Sherif and colleagues introduced a dilemma to both groups that could only be solved through mutual cooperation. The researchers told both groups that there was a shortage of drinking water in the camp, supposedly due to “vandals” damaging the water supply. As both groups gathered around the water supply, attempting to find a solution, members from each group offered suggestions and worked together to fix the problem. Since the lack of drinking water affected both groups equally, both were highly motivated to try and resolve the issue. Finally, after 45 minutes, the two groups managed to clear a stuck pipe, allowing fresh water to flow. The researchers concluded that when conflicting groups share a superordinate goal, they are capable of shifting their attitudes and bridging group differences to become cooperative partners. The insights from this study have important implications for group-level cooperation. Since many problems facing the world today, such as climate change and nuclear proliferation, affect individuals of all nations, and are best dealt with through the coordinated efforts of different groups and countries, emphasizing the shared nature of these dilemmas may enable otherwise competing groups to engage in cooperative and collective action.

Culture can have a powerful effect on people’s beliefs about and ways they interact with others. Might culture also affect a person’s tendency toward cooperation? To answer this question, Joseph Henrich and his colleagues surveyed people from 15 small-scale societies around the world, located in places such as Zimbabwe, Bolivia, and Indonesia. These groups varied widely in the ways they traditionally interacted with their environments: some practiced small-scale agriculture, others foraged for food, and still others were nomadic herders of animals (Henrich et al., 2001).

To measure their tendency toward cooperation, individuals of each society were asked to play the ultimatum game, a task similar in nature to the prisoner’s dilemma. The game has two players: Player A (the “allocator”) is given a sum of money (equal to two days’ wages) and allowed to donate any amount of it to Player B (the “responder”). Player B can then either accept or reject Player A’s offer. If Player B accepts the offer, both players keep their agreed-upon amounts. However, if Player B rejects the offer, then neither player receives anything. In this scenario, the responder can use his/her authority to punish unfair offers, even though it requires giving up his or her own reward. In turn, Player A must be careful to propose an acceptable offer to Player B, while still trying to maximize his/her own outcome in the game.

According to a model of rational economics, a self-interested Player B should always choose to accept any offer, no matter how small or unfair. As a result, Player A should always try to offer the minimum possible amount to Player B, in order to maximize his/her own reward. Instead, the researchers found that people in these 15 societies donated on average 39% of the sum to their partner (Henrich et al., 2001). This number is almost identical to the amount that people of Western cultures donate when playing the ultimatum game (Oosterbeek et al., 2004). These findings suggest that allocators in the game, instead of offering the least possible amount, try to maintain a sense of fairness and “shared rewards” in the game, in part so that their offers will not be rejected by the responder.

Henrich and colleagues (2001) also observed significant variation between cultures in terms of their level of cooperation. Specifically, the researchers found that the extent to which individuals in a culture needed to collaborate with each other to gather resources to survive predicted how likely they were to be cooperative. For example, among the people of the Lamelara in Indonesia, who survive by hunting whales in groups of a dozen or more individuals, donations in the ultimatum game were extremely high—approximately 58% of the total sum. In contrast, the Machiguenga people of Peru, who are generally economically independent at the family level, donated much less on average—about 26% of the total sum. The interdependence of people for survival, therefore, seems to be a key component of why people decide to cooperate with others.

Though the various survival strategies of small-scale societies might seem quite remote from your own experiences, take a moment to think about how your life is dependent on collaboration with others. Very few of us in industrialized societies live in houses we build ourselves, wear clothes we make ourselves, or eat food we grow ourselves. Instead, we depend on others to provide specialized resources and products, such as food, clothing, and shelter that are essential to our survival. Studies show that Americans give about 40% of their sum in the ultimatum game—less than the Lamelara give, but on par with most of the small-scale societies sampled by Henrich and colleagues (Oosterbeek et al., 2004). While living in an industrialized society might not require us to hunt in groups like the Lamelara do, we still depend on others to supply the resources we need to survive.

Take a Quiz

An optional quiz is available to accompany this chapter here: https://nobaproject.com/modules/cooperation 

 Discussion Questions

• Which groups do you identify with? Consider sports teams, home towns, and universities. How does your identification with these groups make you feel about other members of these groups? What about members of competing groups?
• Thinking of all the accomplishments of humanity throughout history which do you believe required the greatest amounts of cooperation? Why?
• In your experience working on group projects—such as group projects for a class—what have you noticed regarding the themes presented in this module (eg. Competition, free riding, cooperation, trust)? How could you use the material you have just learned to make group projects more effective?
• Allport, G.W. (1954).  The nature of prejudice . Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2001). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner’s dilemma II: What if the target of empathy has defected?  European Journal of Social Psychology , 31(1), 25-36.
• Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner’s dilemma.  European Journal of Social Psychology , 29(7), 909-924.
• Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. (1995). Empathy and the collective good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68(4), 619.
• Bigler R.S., Brown C.S., Markell M. (2001). When groups are not created equal: Effects of group status on the formation of intergroup attitudes in children.  Child Development , 72(4), 1151–1162.
• Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 50(3), 543-549.
• Chaudhuri, A., Sopher, B., & Strand, P. (2002). Cooperation in social dilemmas, trust and reciprocity.  Journal of Economic Psychology , 23(2), 231-249.
• Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance.  Administrative Science Quarterly , 51(1), 1-28.
• Cropanzano R., & Byrne Z.S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. In M. Van Vugt, M. Snyder, T. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.),  Cooperation in Modern Society: Promoting the Welfare of Communities, States and Organizations  (pp. 142-161). London: Routledge.
• Davis, M. H. (1994).  Empathy: A social psychological approach . Westview Press.
• Dawes, R. M., & Kagan, J. (1988).  Rational choice in an uncertain world . Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35(1), 1.
• De Waal, F.B.M., & Lanting, F. (1997).  Bonobo: The forgotten ape . University of California Press.
• Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review.  Psychological Bulletin , 136(3), 351-374.
• Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1980). Takeover bids, the free-rider problem, and the theory of the corporation. T he Bell Journal of Economics , 42-64.
• Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies.  The American Economic Review , 91(2), 73-78.
• Insko, C. A., Kirchner, J. L., Pinter, B., Efaw, J., & Wildschut, T. (2005). Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity as a function of trust and categorization: The paradox of expected cooperation.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88(2), 365-385.
• Insko, C. A., Pinkley, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Dalton, B., Hong, G., Slim, R. M., … & Thibaut, J. (1987). Individual versus group discontinuity: The role of intergroup contact.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 23(3), 250-267.
• Keltner, D., Kogan, A., Piff, P. K., & Saturn, S. R. (2014). The sociocultural appraisals, values, and emotions (SAVE) framework of prosociality: Core processes from gene to meme.  Annual Review of Psychology , 65, 425-460.
• Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemma.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66(3), 513-529.
• Kerr, N. L., Garst, J., Lewandowski, D. A., & Harris, S. E. (1997). That still, small voice: Commitment to cooperate as an internalized versus a social norm.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23(12), 1300-1311.
• Klandermans, B. (2002). How group identification helps to overcome the dilemma of collective action.  American Behavioral Scientist , 45(5), 887-900.
• Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions.  Annual Review of Psychology , 50(1), 569-598.
• Kramer, R. M., McClintock, C. G., & Messick, D. M. (1986). Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis.  Journal of Personality , 54(3), 576-582.
• Langergraber, K. E., Mitani, J. C., & Vigilant, L. (2007). The limited impact of kinship on cooperation in wild chimpanzees.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104(19), 7786-7790.
• Locksley, A., Ortiz, V., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Social categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup discrimination effect.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39(5), 773-783.
• Marcus, R. F., Telleen, S., & Roke, E. J. (1979). Relation between cooperation and empathy in young children.  Developmental Psychology , 15(3), 346.
• McClintock, C. G., & Allison, S. T. (1989). Social value orientation and helping behavior.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 19(4), 353-362.
• Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 4(1), 1-25.
• Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Bakker, T. C., & Krambeck, H. J. (2001). Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: Image scoring or standing strategy?  Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences , 268(1484), 2495-2501.
• Mithen, S. (1999).  The prehistory of the mind: The cognitive origins of art, religion and science . Thames & Hudson Publishers.
• Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & Van De Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis.  Experimental Economics , 7(2), 171-188.
• Parks, C. D., Henager, R. F., & Scamahorn, S. D. (1996). Trust and reactions to messages of intent in social dilemmas.  Journal of Conflict Resolution , 40(1), 134-151.
• Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future.  Annual Review of Psychology , 28, 363-392.
• Roch, S. G., & Samuelson, C. D. (1997). Effects of environmental uncertainty and social value orientation in resource dilemmas.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 70(3), 221-235.
• Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1999). The reduction of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect: The role of future consequences. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.),  Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects  (pp. 281-294). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
• Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961).  Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment . Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),  Psychology of intergroup relations  (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.),  The social psychology of intergroup relations  (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour.  European Journal of Social Psychology , 1(2), 149-178.
• Van Lange, P. A., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N., & Vugt, M. V. (2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes.  Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 29(4), 375-384.
• Van Vugt M., Biel A., Snyder M., & Tyler T. (2000). Perspectives on cooperation in modern society: Helping the self, the community, and society. In M. Van Vugt, M. Snyder, T. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.),  Cooperation in Modern Society: Promoting the Welfare of Communities, States and Organizations  (pp. 3–24). London: Routledge.
• Van Vugt, M., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 86(4), 585-598.
• Van Vugt, M., Meertens, R. M., & Lange, P. A. (1995). Car versus public transportation? The role of social value orientations in a real-life social dilemma.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 25(3), 258-278.
• Van Vugt, M., Van Lange, P. A., & Meertens, R. M. (1996). Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements.  European Journal of Social Psychology , 26(3), 373-395.
• Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and cooperation at 14 months of age.  Infancy , 11(3), 271-294.
• Warneken, F., Chen, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees.  Child Development , 77(3), 640-663.
• Wedekind, C., & Milinski, M. (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans.  Science , 288(5467), 850-852.
• Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect.  Psychological Bulletin , 129(5), 698-722.

A classic paradox in which two individuals must independently choose between defection (maximizing reward to the self) and cooperation (maximizing reward to the group).

cooperation is when multiple partners work together toward a common goal that will benefit everyone.

The often challenged principle that people will make logical decisions based on maximizing their own gains and benefits.

An assessment of how an individual prefers to allocate resources between their self and another person.

A task in which an individual chooses from multiple allocations of resources to distribute between him- or herself and another person.

A game in which members of a group must balance their desire for personal gain against the deterioration and possible collapse of a resource.

A collective product or service that is freely available to all individuals of a society, but is vulnerable to overuse and degradation.

The ability to understand another person's emotional experience

A desire to improve the welfare of another person, at a potential cost to the self and without any expectation of reward.

When a person places their self in a position in which they might be exploited or harmed. This is often done out of trust that others will not exploit the vulnerability.

The belief that another person’s actions will be beneficial to one’s own interests

The reduction of individual effort exerted when people work in groups compared with when they work alone.

when individuals benefit from the cooperation of others without contributing anything in return

A person’s sense of who they are, based on their group membership(s).

The tendency for relations between groups to be less cooperative than relations between individuals.

A social category or group with which an individual does not identify.

Cooperation Copyright © 2021 by Cameron W. Piercy, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Unleashing Creativity: 23 Group Activities Ideas For Problem Solving

As an affiliate, we may earn a commission from qualifying purchases. We get commissions for purchases made through links on this website from Amazon and other third parties.

The use of group activities to include everyone in problem-solving is growing in popularity. Individuals can get together to work on an issue that impacts their team, company, or even community by participating in a group activity.

Group activities may be a terrific approach to improve communication, leadership, and creative abilities in addition to teaching people how to cooperate towards a shared objective. This blog article aims to offer suggestions for group activities that might improve problem-solving skills and a sense of cohesion among group members.

In this article, we will discuss 23 group activities ideas for problem-solving, including virtual team-building problem-solving activities.

Read More: 15 Group Activities For Social Work Students That Are Fun And Engaging!

Why Problem-solving Activities Are Good For A Group?

Team-building activities that involve problem-solving are quite effective. They not only enhance communication, but they also foster creativity and raise output.

People learn to trust one another and depend on each other’s abilities when they cooperate to solve challenges.

As a result, people are better able to grasp one another’s skills and how to collaborate. Additionally, problem-solving exercises inspire individuals to think creatively and beyond the box.

16 In-Person Group Activities Ideas For Problem-Solving

• Word Association: Word association is a game in which groups must collaborate to come up with a list of words that are connected in a given amount of time.
• Picture Association: Teams must cooperate in order to connect a collection of images to create a narrative.
• Mystery Case: By assembling information and drawing conclusions, teams must work together to solve a mystery case.
• The marshmallow Tower Challenge: Requires groups to construct the tallest tower using just marshmallows and toothpicks.
• Wild Goose Chase: To finish first, teams must race through a variety of chores, locate buildings, and solve riddles in the great outdoors.
• Trivia Challenge: Teams must cooperate to respond to as many trivia questions as they can in the allotted amount of time.
• The Price is Right: Teams must collaborate to estimate the cost of various things.
• The Blindfolded Obstacle Course: Teams must lead a blindfolded participant through an obstacle course.
• The Tower of Hanoi: Teams must cooperate in order to tackle the Tower of Hanoi Puzzle.
• The Sponge Race: Teams must move a sponge from one bucket to another using just their bodies.
• The Balloon Race: The balloon race requires teams to race while using just their bodies to propel a balloon from one end of the room to the other.
• Domino Effect Challenge: Teams are given a set of dominoes and instructed to start a chain reaction that will eventually fall every domino.
• Reverse Pyramid: Teams are required to construct a pyramid construction, but there is a catch: they must do so backward, beginning at the top and moving downward.
• Crime Investigators : Teams are assigned a crime to investigate, and they must cooperate to obtain information and identify the offender.
• Egg Drop: Teams are given materials to create an apparatus that will keep an egg from cracking when dropped from a specific height in the Egg Drop competition. The goal is to determine which team’s invention is the most successful.
• Cardboard Boat Building Challenge: During this exercise, groups are entrusted with constructing a cardboard boat. The goal is to see which team’s boat can hold the most weight without sinking.

7 Virtual Team Building Problem-Solving Activities

If your team is working remotely or is compelled to do so, virtual group activities for problem-solving could prove to be a tremendous boon for the communion and engagement of the team members, all while they work from the comfort of their own homes.

• Virtual Trivia: Teams can participate in a virtual trivia tournament and respond to inquiries about a variety of topics. Preparation : You’ll need a platform like Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams to host the game in order to prepare for a virtual trivia contest. You’ll also require a database of trivia questions and answers or a website that offers such information. Virtual trivia is frequently played on websites like Kahoot, Quizlet, and TriviaMaker.
• Virtual Scavenger Hunt: Teams can take part in a virtual scavenger hunt, deciphering clues to locate the next one. Preparation : To hold a virtual scavenger hunt, you’ll need a platform, such as a video conferencing application or a platform for virtual events. You’ll also need to make a list of things or assignments that participants must locate or do. Using a website like GooseChase, Scavify, or Adventure Hunt, you may design a scavenger hunt.
• Virtual Murder Mystery: Teams can participate in a virtual murder mystery game where they must collect evidence and solve the case. Preparation : You’ll need a platform to host the game, such as Zoom or Google Meet, in order to host a virtual murder mystery. Additionally, you’ll want a murder mystery script or kit that contains the tale, the characters, and the clues. Virtual murder mystery kits are sold by a variety of businesses, including Murder Mystery Games , Virtual Murder Mystery, and Mystery Escape Rooms.
• Virtual Escape Room: Teams can cooperate to solve riddles and make their way out of a virtual escape room using this game. Preparation : You’ll need a platform to host the game, such as Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams, in order to host a virtual escape room. A platform that offers a virtual escape room experience, such as Puzzlomatic, Escapologic, or Unlock, is also required.
• Virtual Jeopardy: Teams can take part in a virtual Jeopardy tournament by responding to questions about a variety of topics. Preparation: You’ll need a platform to host the game, such as Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams, in order to host a virtual Jeopardy game. Using a website like Kahoot, Quizlet, or TriviaMaker, you may make your own Jeopardy game.
• Virtual Minefield: Without verbal contact, teams must follow directions to move through a virtual minefield. Preparation: You’ll need a platform to host the game, such as Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams, in order to host a virtual minefield. Using a website like Kahoot, Quizlet, or TriviaMaker, you may design your own digital minefield.
• Virtual Jigsaw Puzzle: To finish a virtual jigsaw puzzle as rapidly as feasible, teams must cooperate. Preparation: A platform to host the game, such as Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams, is required in order to host a virtual jigsaw puzzle. A virtual jigsaw puzzles platform like Jigsaw Planet, Jigsaw Explorer, or JigZone is also required.

Things To Consider When Making Problem-Solving Activities For A Team

When creating problem-solving activities for a team, it’s essential to consider the following:

• Goals : What is the goal of the activity? Is it to improve communication, boost creativity, or increase productivity?
• Team Size : How many people will be participating in the activity? This will impact the type of activity that can be done.
• Time : How much time do you have for the activity? Some activities may require more time than others.
• Equipment : What equipment do you have available for the activity? Some activities may require special equipment.
• Budget : What is your budget for the activity? Some activities may require a larger budget than others.
• Virtual Platform : What virtual platform will you use for the activity? Some activities may require specific virtual platforms.

Frequently Asked Questions [FAQs]

What are some benefits of problem-solving activities for a group.

Answer: Problem-solving activities improve communication, boost creativity, increase productivity, and strengthen bonds between team members.

Can Problem-solving Activities Be Done Virtually?

Answer: Yes, problem-solving activities can be done virtually. Many virtual team-building problem-solving activities exist, such as virtual trivia, virtual scavenger hunts, and virtual escape rooms.

How Do Problem-Solving Activities Help Improve Team Communication?

Answer: Problem-solving activities encourage team members to work together, listen to each other’s ideas, and express their thoughts and opinions. This leads to improved communication and better collaboration among team members.

What Are Some Advantages Of Virtual Team-building Problem-Solving Activities?

Answer: Virtual team-building problem-solving activities offer the convenience of being able to participate from anywhere with an internet connection, and they allow teams to participate in activities that may not be possible in person, such as virtual escape rooms or virtual murder mysteries.

How Do I Choose The Right Problem-Solving Activity For My Team?

Answer: Consider the goals of the activity, team size, available time, necessary equipment, budget, and virtual platform when choosing a problem-solving activity for your team. It’s also a good idea to take into account the interests and preferences of your team members.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, problem-solving activities are an excellent way to build strong, effective teams. They promote creativity, communication, and collaboration, and can be done both in-person and virtually.

When creating problem-solving activities for a team, it’s essential to consider the goals, team size, time, equipment, budget, and virtual platform.

With these 20 group activities ideas for problem-solving, virtual team building problem-solving activities , and things to consider, you’re well on your way to creating engaging and productive problem-solving activities for your team.

About the author

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Latest Posts

How do you make an escape room in your bedroom ideas and tips.

Starting off, why not pick a theme that really gets you excited? Think along the lines of a mysterious adventure or a magical fantasy. Next up, you’re gonna want to weave a cool storyline that brings out the unique quirks of your room. And, of course, you gotta throw in some puzzles. Make sure they…

6 Best Group RPGs of 2024: Ultimate Adventures for You and Your Friends

In 2024, gather your friends and immerse yourselves in the ultimate group RPG adventures. Kickstart your journey with the Dungeons and Dragons Essentials Kit, offering everything you need, whether you’re a newcomer or a seasoned player. For younger adventurers, My Junior Roleplaying Game provides light-hearted fun and simple mechanics. The Transformers Roleplaying Game promises beginner-friendly…

6 Top Board Games for Boosting Physical Coordination and Dexterity

Just as a tightrope walker relies on balance and precision to cross the thin line between success and a perilous fall, you too can sharpen your physical coordination and dexterity, albeit in a more grounded manner. By engaging with select board games, you're not only promised hours of entertainment but also an opportunity to enhance…

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

17.3: Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Learning objectives.

• Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
• Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
• Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
• Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.

Group Problem Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.

Problems have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

• An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
• A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise, achievable goal, but solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

• Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based: designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but also innovations in the layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members are not familiar with a problem, they need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Lack of flexibility could limit others’ input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem — a problem statement . As you prepare this statement, avoid wording that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations by city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step, groups should analyze the problem and their relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do other cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations by city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” The problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

Spotlight: “Getting Competent”

Problem Solving and Group Presentations

Giving a group presentation requires that individual group members and the group as a whole solve many problems and make many decisions. Although having more people involved in a presentation increases logistical difficulties and has the potential to create more conflict, a well-prepared and well-delivered group presentation can be more engaging and effective than a typical presentation. The main problems facing a group giving a presentation are (1) dividing responsibilities, (2) coordinating schedules and time management, and (3) working out the logistics of the presentation delivery.

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually develops some resentment toward the other group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, they should also spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly, so there is no role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his/her own but help focus the group’s attention on his/her specific area during group meetings (Stanton, 2009).

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people’s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members’ commitment.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn’t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space (Stanton, 2012). In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his/her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they are not fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you are going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don’t want presenters huddled in a corner until it’s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes.

Critical thinking questions:

• Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?
• Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviours, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they’ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should last a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm-up encourages the group’s abstract creativity, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session. This session shouldn’t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to build on each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn’t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague and can’t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to avoid throwing out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn’t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they’ve finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, you can ask group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 17.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including parliaments and superior courts, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn’t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him/her than by those who didn’t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that’s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

Table 17.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques

Spotlight: “Getting Critical”

Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts (de Bono, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

• White hat. Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
• Red hat. Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
• Black hat. Negative—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
• Yellow hat. Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
• Green hat. Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
• Blue hat. Philosophical—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” in order to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

Self-reflection and critical thinking questions:

• This decision-making method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
• What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
• Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision Making

A group’s situational context affects decision making. One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members can’t know what other group members are thinking, whether or not they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. So the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop something and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how much the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious (Spranger, 1928).

• The economic decision maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
• The aesthetic decision maker makes decisions based on form and harmony, desiring a solution that is elegant and in sync with the surroundings.
• The theoretical decision maker wants to discover the truth through rationality.
• The social decision maker emphasizes the personal impact of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
• The political decision maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or property as divided into groups that have different value.
• The religious decision maker seeks to identify with a larger purpose, works to unify others under that goal, and commits to a viewpoint, often denying one side and being dedicated to the other.

In North America, economic, political, and theoretical decision making tend to be more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on competition and efficiency. But situational context, as we discussed before, can also influence our decision making.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

• Dominant versus submissive. Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more direct eye contact, seek leadership positions, and take control over decision-making processes. More submissive members are reserved, contribute to the group only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and leave their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
• Friendly versus unfriendly. Group members on the friendly side of the continuum find a balance between talking and listening, don’t try to win at the expense of other group members, are flexible but not weak, and value democratic decision making. Unfriendly group members are disagreeable, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct it in their own interest rather than in the interest of the group.
• Instrumental versus emotional. Instrumental group members are emotionally neutral, objective, analytical, task-oriented, and committed followers, which leads them to work hard and contribute to the group’s decision making as long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional group members are creative, playful, independent, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist group norms or decision-making structures, and switch often from relational to task focus.

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011, p. 5). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999, p. 133). Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviours and can influence group decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviours such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone doesn’t like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviours by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters. Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviours seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviours that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviours, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more traditionally masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to that communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more “feminine” communication style. In short, it seems that although “masculine” communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999, p. 133).

Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are more similar than different in terms of race and age. This ease of communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice some creativity. As we learned earlier, groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision making and creativity of output.

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes more) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger (Allen, 2011, p. 5). The current generations in the workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons, but they may still occupy high-ranking positions in some organizations. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
• The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, this generation continues to be well-represented in the workforce. Baby boomers are the most populous generation in North American history, and they are working longer than previous generations (more years).
• Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They have been greatly affected by the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.
• Generation Z . Born after 2000, these individuals have only recently joined the work force. They are more technology-minded and more invested in diversity, social justice, and environmentalism than previous generations.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing Chapter 6: Introduction to Cultural Communication will give you useful knowledge to help you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

• Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
• Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
• Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
• Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
• Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
• Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
• Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.
• Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
• Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
• Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.

• Scenario 1. Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
• Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
• Scenario 1: Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
• Scenario 2: Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
• Scenario 3: Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
• Scenario 4: Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
• Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Adams, K., & Galanes, G. G. (2009). Communicating in groups: Applications and skills (7th ed.), 220-21. McGraw-Hill.

Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Waveland.

Bormann, E. G., Bormann, N. C. (1988). Effective small group communication , (4th ed.), 112-13. Burgess.

Clarke, G. (1970, June 29). The Silent Generation revisited. Time , 46.

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1991). Communication in small group discussions: An integrated approach (3rd ed.), 77-78. West Publishing.

de Bono, E.. (1985). Six thinking hats. Little, Brown.

Delbecq, A. L., Ven de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7 (4), 466–92.

Haslett, B. B., Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make?: The effects of individuals, culture, and group composition. In L.R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp.115-38). Sage.

Napier, R. W., Gershenfeld, M. K. (2004). Groups: Theory and experience , (7th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Osborn, A. F. (1959). Applied imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Spranger, E. (1928). Types of men. Steckert.

Stanton, C. (2009, Nov. 3). How to deliver group presentations: The unified team approach. Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills. http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30 (2), 242–63.

Advanced Professional Communication Copyright © 2021 by Melissa Ashman; Arley Cruthers; eCampusOntario; Ontario Business Faculty; and University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Open access
• Published: 18 June 2024

Effectiveness of spaced repetition for clinical problem solving amongst undergraduate medical students studying paediatrics in Pakistan

• Shazia F. Durrani 1 ,
• Naveed Yousuf 2 ,
• Rahila Ali 2 ,
• Fatima Fakhir Musharraf 3 ,
• Ammara Hameed 1 &
• Hussain Ahmed Raza 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  676 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

156 Accesses

Metrics details

Studies using spaced repetition for teaching and learning in undergraduate clinical rotations such as paediatrics are limited, even more so in the South Asian region. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the effectiveness of utilizing spaced repetition compared to traditional learning methods among undergraduate medical students during their paediatric rotation at a medical university in Pakistan.

Bahria University Medical and Dental College (BUMDC) conducted quasii-experimental research in Karachi. Four topics were identified from the Year 5 Pediatrics curriculum to be used in the study, using which the study content was developed along with 50 multiple choice questions (MCQs) for assessment. All BUMDC Year 5 medical students rotating in Pediatrics were included and randomly allocated to the control or intervention group. In the control group, they provided the students with traditional study methods consisting of books and lectures to learn topics. In the intervention group, we created an Anki flashcard deck of the same topics to enable learning via spaced repetition. The researchers conducted a pretest and post test assessment of the 50 MCQs in both groups at the beginning and after the four-week study interval. The data were analysed using SPSS 19.

A total of 115 BUMDC medical students agreed to participate in the study; 70 (59.1%) were in the intervention group, and 45 (41.7%) were in the control group. The pretest mean score of the control group was 27.96 ± 3.70, and the posttest mean score was 27.22 ± 5.02, with no statistically significant difference at the 95% confidence level. The mean score of the pretest for the intervention group was 27.93 ± 4.53, and that of the posttest was 30.8 ± 4.56, with a statistically significant difference at the 95% confidence level. The intervention showed a significant effect size of 0.8.

The use of spaced repetitions resulted in significantly greater scores for medical students studying paediatrics than for those using more traditional methods of learning, compromising medical books and lectures. Considering that medical students need to retain a vast amount of information, using spaced repetition through flashcards can be a more effective learning tool that is more cost-efficient and time-efficient than traditional learning methods.

Peer Review reports

Learning in medical school comprises building factual and theoretical knowledge, followed by practical application of that knowledge in a clinical setting. Due to the extensive medical curriculum, undergraduate medical students need help in the long-term retention of knowledge taught in clinical and nonclinical disciplines. Furthermore, medical students are in critical need of efficient self-study teaching and learning methods to help them retain the vast amounts of knowledge and clinical skills required to fulfil medical school competencies [ 1 ]. However, students must be aware of efficient learning strategies that can improve their long-term memory retention [ 2 ].

A study by Gilbert, M. M. (2023), conducted in the Boonshoft School of Medicine, USA, explored techniques that help students improve learning and found that spaced repetition was the best technique for enhancing student learning [ 3 ]. It has already been proven that the retention of factual knowledge is improved by using practice tests and spaced repetition [ 4 ]. Undergraduate and postgraduate medical students globally use spaced repetition despite being a comparatively new concept in medical education. It not only helps individuals attain proficiency but also aids in active recall and the application of clinical knowledge [ 5 ]. Numerous studies have shown evidence of the effectiveness of spaced repetition in long-term memory retention. A study of undergraduate medical students showed better short-term and long-term memory retention using spaced repetition learning [ 6 ].

Flashcards are the most popular method for utilizing spaced repetition learning. Anki. Web consists of flashcard software built on a spaced repetition algorithm. The literature has shown that Anki flashcards are beneficial for learning basic sciences such as anatomy [ 7 ]. Anki has become a popular learning tool in medical schools across the globe since it not only boosts performance on medical licensing exams but also allows most American first-year medical university students to use Anki flashcards to supplement their studies [ 8 , 9 ].

In particular, medical students struggle to learn about numerous volatile topics that require quick recall, such as developmental milestones, immunizations, and integrated management of neonatal and childhood illnesses. Due to difficulty in recalling such minute facts, students will undoubtedly need help to perform well in their paediatric rotations. Furthermore, medical educators have conducted global studies to identify the most effective teaching and learning strategies in medical education. However, data about South Asia, such as Pakistan, still need to be available. Additionally, researchers have yet to perform many studies to determine effective teaching and learning strategies in paediatric rotations for undergraduate medical students. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the effectiveness of the spaced repetition learning strategy compared to traditional learning methods for undergraduate medical students during their paediatrics rotation at a private medical university in Pakistan.

Methodology

Setting and participants.

This quasi experimental study was conducted at Bahria University Medical and Dental College (BUMDC) in Karachi, Pakistan. The total duration of the study was six months, and participant assessments were performed at four-week intervals.

The sample size was the whole population, which included the whole class of BUMDC year 5 medical students rotating in paediatrics. Purposive sampling, where total population sampling was performed.

The inclusion criteria included all BUMDC Year 5 medical students rotating in Pediatrics. The exclusion criteria consisted of five medical students who did not have internet access or who did not consent to participate in the study. The students were randomly divided into two groups: the intervention group and the control group. Each group had an equal number of students who were selected randomly.

Ethical approval

Data collection started after receiving approval from the Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of AKU (2021-6175-19040) and BUHSC (69/2020).

Consent from participants

The AKU-approved consent form was printed, and informed consent was obtained from five medical students of the BUMDC who agreed to participate in the study. Students were informed that their names and results would not be disclosed to anyone (except the students themselves) and that the results would not affect their rotation performance scores. Upon agreement, the students were asked to sign the form that the researcher and principal investigator had already signed. Copies of the form were given to the students after the signatures were completed. The forms are attached as additional file 5 .

Content selection and validation

Four topics were identified from the year 5 pediatrics curriculum to be used in the study for assessing learning in both the intervention and control groups. The topics included developmental milestones, Integrated Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illnesses (IMNCIs), immunizations, and malnutrition. These topics were selected since knowledge of these topics is commonly applied in general paediatric clinics. Furthermore, they encompass a broad range of crucial factual knowledge that is difficult to recall during clinical practice. The learning objectives of these four topics, along with a table of specifications (ToS) with relative weights assigned to each topic for pretest and post test assessments, are provided in additional annexure file 1 .

We identified eight experts who were FCPSs trained or equivalent in pediatrics, had at least five years of teaching experience, and had advanced qualifications in medical education (master’s or advanced diploma or equivalent). All eight experts were sent a request through email to be a member of the expert validation panel for our study to review our learning objectives and weight given to each topic and to select the pretest and post test multiple choice questions (MCQs) for assessment. Five experts responded positively and were included after their approval to participate. The five experts were requested via email to review and rate their agreement with the learning objectives and the weights assigned to each of the four topics we selected from the year 5 Pediatrics curriculum using a structured form with a four-point scale that varied from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ (Annexure III). All five experts agreed on the topics’ learning objectives and relative weights (file I). Any minor suggestions provided by the experts were reviewed and incorporated as necessary (Annexure IV).

Spaced repetition and mass learning materials

Anki is a flashcard software built upon a spaced repetition algorithm that allows users to review studied cards after one day, three days, seven days, 14 days, and 28 days. Flashcards are digitally made and appear at intervals depending on user recall. Flashcards are organized into decks, and users review these decks regularly. Based on the algorithm, the card being studied can be a new card not previously created by the user or an older card that reappears after an appropriate interval. Reviewed Anki cards that are difficult to remember reappear after a short interval, whereas quickly recalled cards reappear after a longer interval. This algorithm effectively uses spaced repetition technology and allows users to customize their learning based on their recall power. This spaced repetition learning method ensures revision of all topics provided on the flash cards.

A deck of Pediatrics flashcards was created using the learning objectives of the four selected topics. The flashcards were sent to the expert panel for review and approval. The content of the flashcards was developed using year five medical course books, lectures, and guidelines, with references to their respective sources included. The flashcards were made on the Anki website and were sent to the students in the intervention group. Instructions were given to the students in the intervention group on how to use the Anki website, along with step-by-step instructions on how to use the Pediatrics flashcard deck. If they had any additional queries, the students were also provided with support on WhatsApp regarding how to use the Anki flashcards. Upon request, a few students were guided face-to-face using the Anki website and flash cards.

The control group was requested to follow traditional learning methods used at the university, which consisted of using lecture notes and books that covered the same learning content provided in the flashcards given to the other group.

To eliminate potential confounders and correct the selection of students, intervention group students had to enrol on the Anki website using their emails. The flashcards and download instructions, including the paediatric flashcards deck, were given only to the students in the intervention group, who were given instructions to keep them private. Both groups were added to the respective WhatsApp group chats for daily feedback. This feedback ensured that the intervention group had no trouble using the new Anki flashcards. The total study time given to both groups was four weeks to ensure that all topics were studied thoroughly by both groups, and enough time was given for learning and retaining the provided information.

Development and validation of assessment questions

Seventy-five one-best multiple-choice questions (MCQs) were developed based on the learning objectives of the four topics selected. Particular attention was given to ensuring that all questions not only required factual recall but also involved critical thinking for problem-solving and applying objective knowledge.

A tool for MCQ validation was created for the expert panel to use, consisting of a four-point rating scale for each item assessing the level of agreement (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) based on relevance, content, and clarity. This tool was sent to the expert panel through email for review and validation. After incorporating expert feedback, 50 MCQs were approved and finalized for the pretest and post test assessments. These 50 questions were also validated according to exam weight and learning objectives.

Data collection

The Quizizz online quiz website (quizizz.com) was used for the pretest and post test assessments in both intervention and control groups, which consisted of the 50 validated MCQs.

Participants and faculty members were informed of the date, location, and timing of the pretest assessment along with test instructions via email. On the day of the pretest assessment, the students were asked to sign an attendance sheet and sign up for the test using their names and roll numbers. The pretest was administered through the Quizizz website. Each MCQ was given 90 s to attempt, leading to 1 h and 15 min for the pretest assessment of 50 MCQs. Four faculty members were involved in the invigilation to ensure fair conduct of the examination.

After four weeks of study, a posttest assessment was performed. The participants and faculty members were again informed of the date, location, and timing of the post test assessment along with the test instructions via email. The post test assessment was the same as the pretest assessment. Similarly, each item was given 90 s, and 1 h and 15 min were given for the entire post test. On the day of the post test assessment, the students were told to sign an attendance sheet and sign up for the post test assessment by name and roll number. Four faculty members were involved in the invigilation to ensure fair conduct of the examination.

Ethical considerations

Student names were kept anonymous since coding was used to mask their names. No one had access to the data except the data reviewers. All hard copies of the consent forms were kept in a locked file, and the assessment results were password-protected on a computer. Both assessments were formative and did not affect their rotation performance assessment. After the post test assessment was completed, the Anki flashcard deck and instructions were provided to all the students, including those in the control group, in case they wished to use them later to prepare for their summative assessment.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19 was used to analyse the data. All inferential analyses were two-sided, and p values < 0.05 (95% confidence level) were considered to indicate statistical significance. For pretest and post test assessment results, quantitative data are reported as the mean ± SD, whereas for qualitative variables, frequencies are reported as percentages. Content validity evidence (ToS) was obtained from content experts (Appendix V). Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha for both pretest and posttest assessments.

An independent sample t test was used to determine the difference between the two groups (intervention versus control) between the pretest and posttest assessments. A paired t test was used to independently measure the differences between the pretest assessment results and posttest assessment results of the two groups (intervention and control). Figure  1 depicts the inferential strategy utilized.

Plan for inferential analysis

Of 145 year 5 BUDMC medical students, 115 agreed to participate in the study for pretest and posttest assessments. Participant characteristics and test results are shown in Table  1 . Among these, 45 (41.7%) were from the control group, and 70 (59.1%) were from the intervention group. Overall, among all participants, 77 (65.8%) were female, and 40 (34.2%) were male.

Overall, for all participants, the mean pretest score was 27.94 ± 4.185, while the posttest score was 29.41 ± 5.04. There was no significant difference in the pretest scores between the intervention and control groups ( p  = 0.973). However, a significant difference was found between the posttest scores between both groups, with the intervention group scoring higher, with a mean score of 30.86 ± 4.56, while the control group scored lower, with a mean score of 27.93 ± 4.53 ( p  < 0.001).

A comparison of the pretest and posttest results using a paired t test is shown in Table  2 . Overall (need info for overall if there was a significant difference). For the control group, there was no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores ( p  = 0.275). However, for the intervention group, the posttest score was significantly greater, with a mean of 30.86 ± 4.56, than the mean pretest score of 27.93 ± 4.53 ( p  < 0.01). The reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha for the pretest was low (0.466), while for the posttest, it was high (0.717).

Effective learning and recall of essential pediatric medicine concepts to perform well in a clinical setting is vital for medical students. Educators and students employ various teaching and learning methods to enable efficient learning and recall of complex concepts. Our study showed that compared to students in the traditional learning methods group, students in the intervention group using spaced repetition performed significantly better on their posttest assessments than on their pretest assessments. Although statistically, posttest scores showed high reliability, pretest scores demonstrated low reliability, which may be due to no or minimal preparation of the students for the pretest assessment.

Our study demonstrated the efficiency of using Anki flashcards for spaced repetition as an effective tool for learning pediatric medicine topics compared to traditional learning methods. Our study revealed that not only does space repetition lead to more effective learning, but students also tend to score higher due to this learning method. A recent blog by Lecturio, a commonly used study platform by medical students, agrees with our findings and states that using flashcards leads to active recall of knowledge, which has been shown to be more advantageous in retaining information than other passive learning methods [ 10 ]. Compared to basic sciences subjects of medicine, which require extensive studies of minute factual details, several studies have also shown flashcards to be practical learning tools for retaining vast amounts of factual knowledge [ 7 , 11 , 12 ]. Interestingly, Lu et al. also found that using Anki flashcards for spaced repetition resulted in higher scores on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 exam, which is heavily based on fundamental scientific factual knowledge [ 13 ].

Similarly, in clinical fields requiring more application of knowledge than just factual recall, the use of flashcards has also been shown to improve performance scores and retention, such as in the fields of obstetrics and gynaecology, radiology, psychiatry, urology and otolaryngology and internal medicine [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. With respect to the field of pediatrics in particular, most studies performed to show the effectiveness of spaced repetition have been conducted mainly at the postgraduate and professional levels. For instance, in contrast to our study findings, a study performed on pediatric residency trainees by McConnery et al. using spaced repetition learning did not show improved performance on assessment [ 20 ]. However, they noted that barriers such as limited time and limited participation may have hampered learning. Similarly, in another study related to pediatric acute illness management, after observing 12 critical illness scenario demonstrations, which were spaced fortnightly, learners demonstrated improved pediatric resuscitation skills [ 21 ].

Most studies on spaced repetition tend only to assess direct recall, especially those performed with students from undergraduate medical schools. In comparison, our study made a conscious effort to evaluate students not only for factual recall but also for problem-solving and clinical application of knowledge. Only a few studies in the literature have also assessed the problem-solving skills of students at the undergraduate level. One such study by Tshibwabwa et al. was conducted in second-year preclinical students at the American University of Medicine, in which they used spaced learning in radiology as part of an integrated curriculum. As a result, spatial learning enhances the retention of radiological concepts and improves problem-solving and radiological assessment skills [ 22 ].

Furthermore, with the South Asian region under the spotlight, we found very little research on spaced learning methods in medical education. Of the few studies we observed from the region, two were performed in India and showed improved learning using spaced repetition among undergraduate students [ 23 , 24 ]. However, unfortunately, no study has been conducted in Pakistan, a country with a significantly increasing number of medical students and physicians produced per year [ 25 ]. In Pakistan, medical education in medical universities primarily relies on traditional methods of teaching, such as using medical books and lectures. Although these methods may be good learning tools, medical colleges should integrate spaced repetition into their curriculum to make teaching and learning more effective. In a low- to middle-income country such as Pakistan, using premade digital flashcard decks for various subjects may be a more cost-effective learning tool for medical students than buying expensive medical books to obtain the same information. Furthermore, spaced repetition can also be more time efficient during revision periods since it can help students focus more on key points and revise weak areas rather than the information the student already knows well.

In our study, we also identified specific pediatric topics that are difficult to recall in a clinical setting but are undoubtedly crucial to remember, such as developmental milestones, malnutrition, immunization, and IMNCIs. Our results showed that students using traditional learning methods struggled more to retain this information, as reflected in their posttest assessment scores. Similarly, a cross-sectional study conducted at Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat. Studies on the perceptions of undergraduate medical students toward Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) Preservice Education have shown that five-year-old medical students need more knowledge regarding IMNCIs [ 26 ]. Another cross-sectional study aimed at assessing the nutritional knowledge and attitudes of medical students at King Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, demonstrated that participants needed better knowledge regarding malnutrition in children [ 27 ]. These findings indicate that medical students struggle to retain critical yet factual concepts related to pediatric health, which will ultimately affect their performance in their clinical rotations and future training. Using improved learning techniques, such as spaced repetition, will aid in retaining minute yet important information and can produce more competent physicians who recognize and promptly address childhood illnesses, improving underfive childhood mortality.

The strengths of our study are that it is the first study of its kind on the use of spaced repetition from Pakistan and the first study of undergraduate medical students studying paediatric medicine. Our sample size included the entire class. An expert panel also validated our assessment content and questions. Both the intervention and control groups were given the same content to study (although in different forms) to ensure fairness in the knowledge provided. We used WhatsApp group chats to ensure that the intervention group completely understood how to use the new learning technology, with daily feedback on several cards reviewed to ensure the completion of cards by the intervention group. Our study also employed pretest and posttest assessments, which enabled us to determine the difference between the two groups under similar testing environments. The MCQs used in the assessment not only involved factual recall but also included critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Our most significant limitation is that this was a single-institute study, and we could not include a larger sample size, which could have led to a more robust analysis. Furthermore, if we extended the time for learning for more than four weeks, we may have shown improved assessment outcomes. Another limitation of our study is that due to time constraints, we could not study the long-term effects of using spaced repetition on final summative or end-of-year exams. Another limitation was that the students were informed that the assessment scores of the pretest and posttest assessments were formative only. A qualitative aspect of this study could have been included in which students reported their perception of the effectiveness of their respective learning tools. It was also almost impossible to ensure that the intervention group students would not share the flashcards with their friends from the control group. In addition, we did not assess clinical skills using spaced repetition and tested only clinical knowledge.

Currently, there is more literature about the use of spaced repetition in undergraduate medical students, especially in South Asia. Our study, which was conducted in an undergraduate medical program in Pakistan, showed that spaced repetition via Anki flashcards resulted in significantly higher scores for medical students studying paediatrics than for students using more traditional learning methods, compromising medical books and lectures. Considering that medical students need to retain a vast amount of information, using spaced repetition through flashcards can be a more effective learning tool and is more cost-effective and time-efficient than traditional learning methods.

Data availability

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Niroula S, Niroula A. Effective way of studying and learning in Medical School. JNMA. 2020;58(231):954–6. https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.5258 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Drigas A, Mitsea E, Skianis C, Metamemory. Metacognitive Strategies for Improved Memory Operations and the role of VR and Mobiles. Behav Sci (Basel Switzerland). 2022;12(11):450. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110450 .

Gilbert MM, Frommeyer TC, Brittain G, et al. A Cohort Study assessing the impact of Anki as a Spaced Repetition Tool on Academic Performance in Medical School. Med Sci Educ. 2023;33(4):955–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01826-8 .

Levy J, Ely K, Lagasca G, et al. Exploring anki usage among First-Year Medical Students during an anatomy & physiology course: a pilot study. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2023;10:23821205231205389. https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205231205389 .

Begley KJ, Fuji KT. Enhancing application and long-term retention of clinical knowledge using an extracurricular noncredit course. Currents Pharm Teach Learn. 2024;16(4):263–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2023.12.023 .

Kooloos JGM, Bergman EM, Scheffers, et al. The Effect of Passive and active education methods Applied in Repetition activities on the Retention of Anatomical Knowledge. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(4):458–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1924 .

Wothe JK, Wanberg LJ, Hohle RD, et al. Academic and Wellness Outcomes Associated with use of Anki Spaced Repetition Software in Medical School. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2023;10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205231173289 .

Harris DM, Chiang M. An analysis of Anki Usage and strategy of First-Year Medical students in a structure and function course. Cureus. 2022;14(3):e23530. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23530 .

Toth E, Araich H, Patel S, et al. Anki Flashcards for Radiology Education. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2023;52(6):453–5. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2023.08.001 .

Beating the Forgetting Curve with Spaced Repetition. Lecturio. 2021. https://www.lecturio.com/blog/medical/beating-the-forgetting-curve-with-spaced-repetition/ . Accessed 4 Oct 2023.

Mishall PL, Burton W, Risley M, Flashcards. The Preferred Online Game-based Study Tool Self-selected by students to Review Medical Histology Image Content. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2023;1406:209–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26462-7_10 .

Jape D, Zhou J, Bullock S. A spaced-repetition approach to enhance medical student learning and engagement in medical pharmacology. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):337. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03324-8 .

Lu M, Farhat JH, Beck Dallaghan GL. Enhanced Learning and Retention of Medical Knowledge using the Mobile Flash card application Anki. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(6):1975–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01386-9 .

Tsai S, Sun M, Asbury ML, et al. Novel Spaced Repetition Flashcard System for the In-training examination for obstetrics and gynecology. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(4):1393–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01320-z .

Cunningham JM, Johnson M, Kincaid T, et al. The spacing effect: improving electrocardiogram interpretation. Clin Teach. 2924;21(1):e13626. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13626 .

Sun M, Tsai S, Engle DL, Holmer S. Spaced Repetition flashcards for Teaching Medical Students Psychiatry. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31(3):1125–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01286-y .

Grad R, Leger D, Kaczorowski J, Schuster T, et al. Does spaced education improve clinical knowledge among Family Medicine residents? A cluster randomized controlled trial. Adv Health Sci Education: Theory Pract. 2021;26(3):771–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-10020-z .

Yu JC, Guo Q, Hodgson CS. Deconstructing the joint examination: a Novel Approach to Teaching Introductory Musculoskeletal Physical examination skills for medical students. MedEdPORTAL: J Teach Learn Resour. 2020;16:10945. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10945 .

Hari R, Kälin K, Birrenbach T et al. Near-peer compared to faculty teaching of abdominal ultrasound for medical students - a randomized-controlled trial, 2024;45(1):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2103-4787 .

McConnery JR, Bassilious E, Ngo QN. Engagement and learning in an electronic spaced repetition curriculum companion for a paediatrics academic half-day curriculum. Perspect Med Educ. 2021;10(6):369–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00680-x .

Ojha R, Liu A, Champion BL, Hibbert E, Nanan RKH. Spaced scenario demonstrations improve knowledge and confidence in pediatric acute illness management. Front Pediatr. 2014;2:133.

Tshibwabwa E, Mallin R, Fraser M, Tshibwabwa M, et al. An Integrated Interactive-Spaced Education Radiology Curriculum for Preclinical Students. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2017;7:22.

Sadhu BJ, Bopanna N. Teaching bioethics to the young learners using flashcards. J Educ Ethics Dentistry. 2017;7:19.

Chugh PK, Tripathi CD. Spaced education and student learning: results from a medical school. Clin Teach. 2020;17:655–60.

World Bank Open Data. World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/country/pakistan . Accessed 4 Oct 2023.

Al-Yahyahi M, Al Kiyumi M, Jaju S, Al Saadoon M. Perceptions of Undergraduate Medical Students toward Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) Preservice Education at Sultan Qaboos University. Muscat Cureus. 2023;15(10):e47260. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47260 .

Bawazir Z, Alrasheedi A, Aljehany BC et al. Bawazir. Nutritional Knowledge and Attitudes among Physician Interns Graduated from King Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1788. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023;11(2):155. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11020155 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Department for Pediatrics, Bahria University Medical & Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan

Shazia F. Durrani & Ammara Hameed

Department for Educational Development, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan

Naveed Yousuf, Rahila Ali & Hussain Ahmed Raza

Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan

Fatima Fakhir Musharraf

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors’ contributions: SFD, NY, RA, and FFM contributed to the study concept and design. FFM and AH contributed to data collection and analysis. SFD and NY take responsibility for data integrity and accuracy of the data analysis. HAR and SFD contributed to the visualization and interpretation of data, drafted the work, and substantively revised it. All authors participated in the write-up of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shazia F. Durrani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

We obtained approval from the Ethical Review Committee of AKU (2021-6175-19040) and BUHSC (69/2020).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, supplementary material 5, supplementary material 6, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Durrani, S.F., Yousuf, N., Ali, R. et al. Effectiveness of spaced repetition for clinical problem solving amongst undergraduate medical students studying paediatrics in Pakistan. BMC Med Educ 24 , 676 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05479-y

Download citation

Received : 06 November 2023

Accepted : 26 April 2024

Published : 18 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05479-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Spaced repetition
• Medical education

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

12 Groups and Problem Solving

Introductory Exercises

• Contact two people who work in different parts of your college or university and ask them what problems they consider to be most significant in their immediate office or work area.  What similarities and differences do you see between the two groups of problems?
• Ask a family member to describe a problem he or she has solved recently.  Describe the steps the person took in reaching the solution and identify the one(s) that you feel were most important in contributing to the solution.  Which of the steps would you be most likely to take in a similar situation?
• Identify two or three aspects of a course you’re taking or have recently taken that you feel could be improved (e.g., grading, course policies, nature of reading materials, etc.).  Describe the steps you might take with a group of fellow students to respond to those elements of the course.
• What decision have you made in the last 2–3 years that you’re proudest of?  What lessons or advice do you think someone else could draw from the way you reached that decision?

12.1 Group Problem Solving

Learning Objectives

• Identify and describe how to implement seven steps for group problem- solving.

No matter who you are or where you live, problems are an inevitable part of life. This is true for groups as well as for individuals. Some groups—especially work teams—are formed specifically to solve problems. Other groups encounter problems for a wide variety of reasons. Within a family group, a problem might be that a daughter or son wants to get married and the parents do not approve of the marriage partner. In a work group, a problem might be that some workers are putting in more effort than others, yet achieving poorer results. Regardless of the problem, having the resources of a group can be an advantage, as different people can contribute different ideas for how to reach a satisfactory solution.

Once a group encounters a problem, the questions that come up range from “Where do we start?” to “How do we solve it?” While there are many ways to approach a problem, the American educational philosopher John Dewey’s reflective thinking sequence has stood the test of time. This seven step process [1] has produced positive results and serves as a handy organizational structure. If you are member of a group that needs to solve a problem and don’t know where to start, consider these seven simple steps [2] :

• Define the problem.
• Analyze the problem.
• Establish criteria.
• Consider possible solutions.
• Decide on a solution.
• Implement the solution.
• Follow up on the solution.

Define the Problem

If you don’t know what the problem is, how can you know you’ve solved it? Defining the problem allows the group to set boundaries of what the problem is and what it is not; and begin to formalize a description or definition of the scope, size, or extent of the challenge the group will address. A problem that is too broadly defined can overwhelm the group. If the problem is too narrowly defined, important information will be missed or ignored.

In the following example, we have a web-based company called Favorites which needs to increase its customer base and ultimately sales. A problem-solving group has been formed, and they start by formulating a working definition of the problem.

• Too Broad: “Sales are off, our numbers are down, and we need more customers.”
• More Precise: “Sales have been slipping incrementally for 6 of the past 9 months and are significantly lower than a seasonally adjusted comparison to last year. Overall this loss represents a 4.5% reduction in sales from the same time last year. However, when we break it down by product category, sales of our non-edible products have seen a modest but steady increase, while sales of edibles account for the drop off and we need to halt the decline.”

Analyze the Problem

Now the group analyzes the problem, trying to gather information and learn more. The problem is complex and requires more than one area of expertise. Why do non- edible products continue selling well? What is it about the edibles that is turning customers off? Let’s meet our problem-solvers at Favorites.

Kevin is responsible for customer resource management. He is involved with the customer from the point of initial contact through purchase and delivery. Most of the interface is automated in the form of an online “basket model,” where photographs and product descriptions are accompanied by “Buy It” buttons. He is available during normal working business hours for live chat and voice interface if needed, and customers are invited to request additional information. Most Favorites customers do not access this service, but Kevin is kept quite busy, as he also handles returns and complaints. Because Kevin believes that superior service retains customers while attracting new ones, he is always interested in better ways to serve the customer. Looking at edibles and non-edibles, he will study the cycle of customer service and see if there are any common points, from the main webpage through the catalog to the purchase process to returns, at which customers abandon the sale. He has existing customer feedback loops with end-of-sale surveys, but most customers decline to take the survey and there is currently no incentive to participate.

Mariah is responsible for products and purchasing. She wants to offer the best products at the lowest price, and to offer new products that are unusual, rare, or exotic. She regularly adds new products to the Favorites catalog and culls underperformers. Right now she has the data on every product and its sales history, but it is a challenge to represent it. She will analyze current sales data and produce a report that specifically identifies how each product, edible and non-edible, is performing. She wants to highlight “winners” and “losers” but also recognizes that today’s “losers” may be the hit of tomorrow. It is hard to predict constantly changing tastes and preferences, but that is part of her job. It’s not all science, and it’s not all art. She has to have an eye for what will catch on tomorrow while continuing to provide what is hot today.

Suri is responsible for data management at Favorites. She gathers, analyzes, and presents information gathered from the supply chain, sales, and marketing. She works with vendors to make sure products are available when needed, makes sales predictions based on past sales history, and assesses the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.

The problem-solving group members already have certain information on hand. They know that customer retention is one contributing factor. Attracting new customers is a constant goal, but they are aware of the well-known principle that it takes more effort to attract new customers than to keep existing ones. Thus, it is important to insure a quality customer service experience for existing customers and encourage them to refer friends. The group needs to determine how to promote this favorable customer behavior.

Another contributing factor seems to be that customers often abandon the shopping cart before completing a purchase, especially when purchasing edibles. The group members need to learn more about why this is happening.

Establish Criteria

Establishing the criteria for a solution is the next step. At this point, information is coming in from diverse perspectives, and each group member has contributed information from their perspective, even though there may be several points of overlap.

Kevin: Customers who complete the post-sale survey indicate that they want to know 1) what is the estimated time of delivery, 2) why a specific item was not in stock and when it will be, and 3) why their order sometimes arrives with less than a complete order, with some items back-ordered, without prior notification.

He notes that a very small percentage of customers complete the post-sale survey, and the results are far from scientific. He also notes that it appears the interface is not capable of cross-checking inventory to provide immediate information concerning back orders, so that the customer “buys it” only to learn several days later that it was not in stock. This seems to be especially problematic for edible products, because people may tend to order them for special occasions like birthdays and anniversaries. But we don’t really know this for sure because of the low participation in the post-sale survey.

Mariah: There are four edible products that frequently sell out. So far, we haven’t been able to boost the appeal of other edibles so that people would order them as a second choice when these sales leaders aren’t available. We also have several rare, exotic products that are slow movers. They have potential, but currently are underperformers.

Suri: We know from a zip code analysis that most of our customers are from a few specific geographic areas associated with above-average incomes. We have very few credit cards declined, and the average sale is over $100.

Shipping costs represent on average 8% of the total sales cost. We do not have sufficient information to produce a customer profile. There is no specific point in the purchase process where basket abandonment tends to happen; it happens fairly uniformly at all steps.

Consider Possible Solutions to the Problem

  The group has listened to each other and now starts to brainstorm ways to address the challenges they have addressed while focusing resources on those solutions that are more likely to produce results.

Kevin: Is it possible for our programmers to create a cross-index feature, linking the product desired with a report of how many are in stock? I’d like the customer to know right away whether it is in stock, or how long they may have to wait. As another idea, is it possible to add incentives to the purchase cycle that won’t negatively impact our overall profit? I’m thinking a small volume discount on multiple items, or perhaps free shipping over a specific dollar amount.

Mariah: I recommend we hold a focus group where customers can sample our edible products and tell us what they like best and why. When the best sellers are sold out, could we offer a discount on related products to provide an instant alternative? We might also cull the underperforming products with a liquidation sale to generate interest.

Suri: If we want to know more about our customers, we need to give them an incentive to complete the post-sale survey. How about a five percent off coupon code for the next purchase, to get them to return and to help us better identify our customer base? We may also want to build in a customer referral rewards program, but it all takes better data in to get results out. We should also explore the supply side of the business and see if we can get a more reliable supply of the leading products, and try to get more advantageous discounts from our suppliers, especially in the edible category.

Decide on a Solution

Kevin, Mariah, and Suri may want to implement all of the solution strategies, but they do not have the resources to do them all. They’ll complete a cost/benefit analysis , which ranks each solution according to its probable impact. The analysis is shown in Table 11.1 “Cost/Benefit Analysis” .

Now that the options have been presented with their costs and benefits, it is easier for the group to decide which courses of action are likely to yield the best outcomes. The analysis helps the group members to see beyond the immediate cost of implementing a given solution. For example, Kevin’s suggestion of offering free shipping won’t cost Favorites much money, but it also may not pay off in customer goodwill. And even though Mariah’s suggestion of having a focus group might sound like a good idea, it will be expensive and its benefits are questionable.

A careful reading of the analysis indicates that Kevin’s best suggestion is to integrate the cross-index feature in the ordering process so that customers can know immediately whether an item is in stock or on back order. Of Mariah’s suggestions, searching for alternative products is probably the most likely to benefit Favorites. And Suri’s two supply-side suggestions are likely to result in positive outcomes.

Implement the Solution

Kevin is faced with the challenge of designing the computer interface without incurring unacceptable costs. He strongly believes that the interface will pay for itself within the first year—or, to put if more bluntly, that Favorites’ declining sales will get worse if the website does not soon have this feature. He asks to meet with top management to get budget approval and secures their agreement, on one condition: He must negotiate a compensation schedule with the Information Technology consultants that includes delayed compensation in the form of bonuses after the feature has been up and running successfully for six months.

Mariah knows that searching for alternative products is a never-ending process, but it takes time and the company needs results. She decides to invest time evaluating products that competing companies currently offer, especially in the edible category, on the theory that customers who find their desired items sold out on the Favorites website may have been buying alternative products elsewhere instead of choosing an alternative from Favorites’ product lines.

Suri decides to approach the vendors of the four frequently sold-out products and ask point blank: “What would it take to get you to produce these items more reliably in greater quantities?” By opening the channel of communication with these vendors, she is able to motivate them to make modifications that will improve the reliability and quantity. She also approaches the vendors of the less popular products with a request for better discounts in return for cooperation in developing and test-marketing new products.

Follow up on the Solution

This scenario allows us to see the problem may have many dimensions, and may have several solutions, but resources can be limited and not every solution is successful. Even though the problem is not immediately resolved, the group problem-solving pattern serves as a useful guide through the problem-solving process.

Key Takeaways

Group problem-solving can be an orderly process when it is broken down into seven specific stages.

• Think of a problem encountered in the past by a group of which you are a member.  How did the group solve the problem?  How satisfactory was the solution? Discuss your results with your classmates.
• Consider again the problem you described in Exercise #1. In view of the seven-step framework, which steps did the group utilize?  Would following the full seven-step framework have been helpful? Discuss your opinion with a classmate.
• Research one business that you would like to know more about and see if you can learn about how they communicate in groups and teams  Compare your results with those of classmates.
• Think of a decision you will be making some time in the near future.  Apply the cost/benefit analysis framework to your decision.  Do you find this method helpful?  Discuss your results with classmates.

12.2 Group Decision-Making

• Define decision-making and distinguish between decision-making and problem-solving.
• Describe five methods of group decision-making.
• Identify six guidelines for consensus decision-making.
• Define autocratic, democratic, and participative decision-making styles and place them within the Tannenbaum-Schmidt continuum.

Life is the sum of all your choices.

–  Albert Camus

Simply put, decision-making  is the process of choosing among options and arriving at a position, judgment, or action. It usually answers a “wh-” question—i.e., what, who, where, or when?—or perhaps a “how” question.

A group may, of course, make a decision in order to solve a problem. For instance, a group of students might discover halfway through a project that some of its members are failing to contribute to the required work. They might then decide to develop a written timeline and a set of deadlines for itself if it believes that action will lead them out of their difficulty.

Not every group decision, however, will be in response to a problem. Many decisions relate to routine logistical matters such as when and where to schedule an event or how to reach someone who wasn’t able to make it to a meeting (r outine in nature; applicable to fundamental elements and considerations of how an organization or process works).   Thus, decision-making differs from problem-solving.

Any decision-making in a group, even about routine topics, is significant. Why? Because decision-making, like problem-solving, results in a change in a group’s status, posture, or stature. Such change, in turn, requires energy and attention on the part of a group in order for the group to progress easily into a new reality.  Things will be different in the group once a problem has been solved or a decision has been reached, and group members will need to adjust.

Methods of Reaching Decisions

  Research does indicate that groups generate more ideas and make more accurate decisions on matters for which a known preferred  solution  exists,  but  they  also operate more slowly than individuals.  [3] Under  time  pressure  and  other  constraints,  some  group  leaders  exercise  their power to make a decision  unilaterally —alone—because they’re willing to sacrifice a degree of accuracy for the sake of speed. Sometimes this behavior turns out to be wise; sometimes it doesn’t.

Assuming that a group determines that it must reach a  decision  together  on  some matter, rather than deferring to the will of a single person, it can proceed according        to several methods. Parker and Hoffman [4] , along with Hartley and Dawson [5] , place decision-making procedures in several categories.

Here is a synthesis of their views of how decision-making can take place:

1.  “A plop.”

A group may conduct a discussion in which members express views and identify alternatives but then reach no decision and take no action. When people go their own ways after such a “ plop ,” things sometimes take care of themselves, and the lack of a decision causes no difficulties. On the other hand, if a group ignores or postpones a decision which really needs attention, its members may confront tougher decisions later—some of which may deal with problems brought about by not addressing a topic when it was at an early stage.

2.  Delegation to an expert.

A group may not be ready to make a decision at a given time, either because it lacks sufficient information or is experiencing unresolved conflict among members with differing views. In such a situation, the group may not want to simply drop the matter and move on. Instead, it may turn to one of its members who everyone feels has the expertise to choose wisely among the alternatives that the group is considering.

The group can either ask the expert to come back later with a final proposal or simply allow the person to make the decision alone after having gathered whatever further information he or she feels is necessary.

3.  Averaging.

Group members may shift their individual stances regarding a question by “splitting the difference” to reach a “middle ground.” This technique tends to work most easily if numbers are involved. For instance, a group trying to decide how much money to spend on a gift for a departing member might ask everyone for a preferred amount and agree to spend whatever is computed by averaging those amounts.

4.  Voting.

If you need to be quick and definitive in making a decision, voting is probably the best method. Everyone in mainstream American society is familiar with the process, for one thing, and its outcome is inherently clear and obvious. A majority vote  requires that more than half of a group’s members vote for a proposal, whereas a proposal subject to a two-thirds vote  will not pass unless twice as many members show support as those who oppose it.

Voting is essentially a win/lose activity. You can probably remember a time when you or someone else in a group composed part of a strong and passionate minority whose desires were thwarted because of the results of a vote. How much commitment did you feel to support the results of that vote?

Voting does offer a quick and simple way to reach decisions, but it works better in some situations than in others. If the members of a group see no other way to overcome a deadlock, for instance, voting may make sense. Likewise, very large groups and those facing serious time constraints may see advantages to voting. Finally, the efficiency of voting is appealing when it comes to making routine or noncontroversial decisions that need only to be officially approved.

5. Consensus.

In consensus decision-making, group members reach a resolution which all of the members can support as being acceptable as a means of accomplishing some mutual goal even though it may not be the preferred choice for everyone. In common use, “consensus” can range in meaning from unanimity to a simple majority vote. In public policy facilitation and multilateral international negotiations, however, the term refers to a general agreement reached after discussions and consultations, usually without voting. “consensus”. (2002). In [6]

Consensus should not be confused with unanimity , which means only that no one has explicitly stated objections to a proposal or decision.  Although unanimity can certainly convey an accurate perspective of a group’s views at times, groupthink also often leads to unanimous decisions. Therefore, it’s probably wise to be cautious when a group of diverse people seems to have formed a totally unified bloc with respect to choices among controversial alternatives.

When a consensus decision is reached through full interchange of views and is then adopted in good faith  by all parties to a discussion, it can energize and motivate a group. Besides avoiding the win/lose elements intrinsic to voting, it converts each member’s investment in a decision into a stake in preserving and promoting the decision after it has been agreed upon.

Guidelines for Seeking Consensus

How can a group actually go about working toward consensus? Here are some guidelines for the process:

First, be sure everyone knows the definition of consensus and is comfortable with observing them. For many group members, this may mean suspending judgment and trying something they’ve never done before. Remind people that consensus requires a joint dedication to moving forward toward improvement in and by the group.

Second, endeavor to solicit participation by every member of the group. Even the naturally quietest person should be actively “polled” from time to time for his or her perspectives. In fact, it’s a good idea to take special pains to ask for varied viewpoints when discussion seems to be stalled or contentious.

Third, listen honestly and openly to each group member’s viewpoints. Attempt to seek and gather information from others. Do your best to subdue your emotions and your tendency to judge and evaluate.

Fourth, be patient. To reach consensus often takes much more time than voting would. A premature “agreement” reached because people give in to speed things up or avoid conflict is likely later to weaken or fall apart.

Fifth, always look for mutually acceptable ways to make it through challenging circumstances. Don’t resort to chance mechanisms like flipping a coin, and don’t trade decisions arbitrarily just so that things come out equally for people who remain committed to opposing views.

Sixth, resolve gridlock earnestly. Stop and ask, “Have we really identified every possible feasible way that our group might act?” If members of a group simply can’t agree on one alternative, see if they can all find and accept a next-best option. Then be sure to request an explicit statement from them that they are prepared to genuinely commit themselves to that option.

One variation on consensus decision-making calls upon a group’s leader to ask its members, before initiating a discussion, to agree to a deadline and a “safety valve.” The deadline would be a time by which everyone in the group feels they need to have reached a decision. The “safety valve” would be a statement that any member can veto the will of the rest of the group to act in a certain way, but only if he or she takes responsibility for moving the group forward in some other positive direction.

Although consensus entails full participation and assent within a group, it usually can’t be reached without guidance from a leader. One college president we knew was a master at escorting his executive team to consensus. Without coercing or rushing them, he would regularly involve them all in discussions and lead their conversations to a point at which everyone was nodding in agreement, or at least conveying acceptance of a decision. Rather than leaving things at that point, however, the president would generally say, “We seem to have reached a decision to do XYZ. Is there anyone who objects?” Once people had this last opportunity to add further comments of their own, the group could move forward with a sense that it had a common vision in mind.

Consensus decision-making is easiest within groups whose members know and respect each other, whose authority is more or less evenly distributed, and whose basic values are shared. Some charitable and religious groups meet these conditions and have long been able to use consensus decision-making as a matter of principle. The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, began using consensus as early as the 17th century. Its affiliated international service agency, the American Friends Service Committee, employs the same approach. The Mennonite Church has also long made use of consensus decision-making.

Groups may choose among several methods of decision-making, including consensus, depending on their circumstances and the characteristics of their leaders and members. Making decisions which are consistent with the group’s values is of paramount importance.

• Think of major decisions made in the last couple of years by two groups you’re a part of. Which method from this section did the groups use in each case? Which of the decisions are you more satisfied with now? Why? To what degree do you feel the decision-making methods the groups used fit the circumstances and the characteristics of the groups themselves?
• Tell a classmate about a decision that a group you’re part of needs to make shortly. Ask the classmate for his/her advice on which decision- making method the group should employ.
• A major hesitation raised by some people with respect to consensus decision-making is that it requires much more time than voting or other direct methods. In what kind of situation would you be, or have you been, willing to invest “as much time as it takes” to reach consensus in a group?

12.3   Facilitating the Task-Oriented Group

• Define “group facilitation”
• Identify five guidelines for facilitating a task-oriented group
• Distinguish between collaboration and “coliberation”

You’ve probably experienced being part of groups that pleased and motivated you. One reason you experienced those positive feelings may have been that the groups planned and executed their tasks so smoothly that you were hardly aware the processes were taking place. In this section we’ll examine ways in which leaders can contribute to such pleasant, easy experiences.

Just as “facile” in English and “fácil” in Spanish mean “easy,” the word “facilitate” itself means “to make something easy” and “ group facilitation ” consists in easing a group’s growth and progress. Most student, community, and business groups are task-oriented, so we’ll consider here how they can most easily be guided toward accomplishing the tasks they set for themselves. Another section of this book deals specifically with the details of leading meetings, so for now we’ll consider broader questions and principles.

If you’re in a position to facilitate a group, you need to take that position seriously. Just as Pope John XXIII realized with respect to his authority and responsibility in the Catholic Church, it’s best to consider yourself the primary source of direction and the ultimate destination for questions in your group. With those concepts in mind, let’s consider five major guidelines you should probably follow in order to facilitate a group whose purposes include achieving tasks.

• Know the group’s members. This means more than just identifying their names and recognizing their faces. If you hope to accomplish anything significant together, you need to be familiar with people’s opinions, their needs, their desires, and their personalities.  Perhaps one member of a group you’re leading is particularly time- conscious, another likes to make jokes, and a third prefers to see concepts represented visually. If you take these propensities into account and respond to them as much as possible, you can draw the best cooperative effort from each of the people. You may want to keep track of who’s done what favors for whom within the group, too. Like it or not, many people operate at least from time to time on the principle that “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”
• Weigh task and relationship considerations. The word “ equilibristic ” is sometimes applied to the actions of athletes and musicians. It refers to a capability to balance differing and sometimes conflicting forces so as to maintain continuous movement in a chosen direction.  Although almost any group has some work to do, and all groups comprise people whose welfare needs to be tended to, the effective facilitator realizes that it’s impossible to emphasize both those elements to the same degree all the time. If people are disgruntled or frustrated, they can’t contribute well to accomplishing a task. Likewise, if people are always contented with one another and their group but can’t focus on getting things done, the group will be unable to attain its objectives. To facilitate a group well, thus, requires that you be equilibristic.
• Understand and anticipate prevalent features of human psychology. Keep in mind that everyone in a group will perceive what the facilitator does in light of his or her own circumstances and wishes.Recall also  that  everyone  possesses  diverse  and  numerous  capacities for self-justification and self-support. In their book Mistakes were made (but not by me) , Carol Tavris and Ellion Aronson referred to studies of married couples’ behavior. They indicated that when husbands and  wives are asked what proportion of the housework they perform, the totals always exceed 100 percent by a large margin.  [7] Tavris and Aronson also described the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, which presents visitors with interactive exhibits portraying categories of people about whom many of us harbor   negative preconceptions—including ethnic and racial minorities, obese individuals, people with disabilities, and so on. A video attempts to persuade visitors that they possess prejudices, after which two doors   are offered as an exit. One is marked “Prejudiced” and the other is labeled “Unprejudiced.” The second door is locked, to make the point that all of us are indeed subject to prejudice.
• Deal well with disruptions. The playwright Paddy Chayevsky wrote that “life is problems.” An effective group facilitator needs to anticipate and skillfully cope with problems as a part of life, whether they’re caused by other people’s behavior or by physical and logistical factors. If you’re an adherent of Theory Y , you probably believe that people enjoy pursuing their goals energetically, in groups or individually. You also probably believe that people prefer to select times and places along the way to relax and recharge. Unfortunately, interruptions often arise in such a way as to make both these aims difficult to achieve. Think about all the unexpected academic, family, and work- related reasons why you and other students you know have found it challenging to “stay the course” toward your personal and collective goals.  A group’s facilitator, thus, needs to make sure that interruptions and disruptions don’t derail it. In fact, he or she might profit from actually celebrating these elements of life, as one Seattle office executive did. According to Dale Turner, the executive’s office had a sign on the wall reading “Don’t be irritated by interruptions. They are your reason for being.” Turner went on to quote the executive as saying “Happily, I have learned how to sit loose in the saddle of life, and I’m not usually disturbed by interruptions. I have made it a habit through the years to leave a stretch factor in my daily schedule. I start early and have tried not to so crowd my day with appointments that I have no time for the unexpected. I have not seen interruptions as an intrusion.” [8]
• Keep returning to the task. You’ve probably been part of a group in which the leader or facilitator had what might be called a divergent, rather than a convergent, personality. Perhaps that person had lots of good ideas but seemed to jump around from topic to topic and chore to chore so much that your head spun and you couldn’t keep track of what was going on. Maybe the person “missed the forest for the trees” because of dwelling excessively on minutia—small and insignificant details. Or perhaps each time you met with the group its facilitator led    a discussion of something valuable and important, but every time it    was a different thing.

Another way to think of how a facilitator should keep bringing the group’s attention back to its tasks relates to the process of meditation. Practitioners of meditation know that people’s minds are naturally active and tend to move readily from subject to subject. When someone is meditating, they say, thoughts will naturally pop into his or her mind. The way to deal with this phenomenon is to regard the thoughts as clouds drifting across the sky. Rather than trying to banish them, the better approach is to allow them to pass by and dissipate, and then to return to serene contemplation.  [9]

Coliberation

Above all, a facilitator’s responsibility is to enable members of a group to function together as easily and happily as possible as they pursue their goals. When this happens, the group will achieve a high level of collaboration. In fact, it may rise beyond collaboration to achieve what the author and computer game designer Bernard DeKoven called “ [pb_glossary id="573"]coliberation .[/pb_glossary]” In speaking about meetings, he had this to say: “Good meetings aren’t just about work. They’re about fun—keeping people charged up. It’s more than collaboration,  it’s  ‘coliberation’—people  freeing  each other up to think more creatively.”  [10]

To facilitate a task-oriented group requires several skills and behaviors and can lead to a state of “coliberation.”

• Recall a time when you were in a group whose leader stressed either its task or relationship factors too much.  How did the members of the group react?  Did the leader eventually develop an equilibristic approach?
• Do you agree with the business executive who said that interruptions are “your reason for being”?  In your studies and family life, what measures do you take to ensure that interruptions are beneficial rather than destructive? What further steps do you feel you might take in this direction?
• Think of someone who effectively facilitated a group you were part of.  Did the person perform the job identified by the Dalai Lama—inspiring faith in the group? If so, how?
• What, if anything, do you feel members of most groups need to be “coliberated” from?

12.4 Summary

In this chapter we have explored problem-solving in groups. We have identified steps which groups can use to attack and solve problems, as well as several methods of reaching decisions. We have considered the nature of group creativity and reviewed how brainstorming may contribute to creative problem-solving and decision-making. Finally, we have identified methods which can be used to facilitate the problem-solving and decision-making behavior or task-oriented groups.

Following systematic, sequential processes can help groups communicate in ways which resolve problems and lead to appropriate decisions.

Review Questions

Interpretive Questions

• In what 2–3 ways has your view of problem-solving or decision-making changed as a result of reading this chapter?
• Under what circumstances, or with what kinds of group members, do you feel brainstorming is most likely to produce better results than other methods of generating creative ideas?

Application Questions

• Call the office of a state senator or representative. Ask the person who answers the phone to provide you with a list of five creative ideas the legislator has put forth to solve problems facing his or her constituency. If you wanted to expand on the list, who else would you consult, and what process would you use to generate more ideas?
• Pick two historical figures who you believe made it easy for people they lived or worked with to achieve shared goals. Find two or three descriptions of episodes in which those figures took action demonstrating that capacity. Identify someone leading a group of which you’re now a member and share the information about the historical figures with that person. What is the person’s reaction? What do you feel might have made the leader’s response more positive?
• Look up the phrase “group decision support system” on line and locate 4–5 software programs meant to assist groups with decisions. List advantages and disadvantages of each and share your conclusions with your classmates.

Additional Resources

http://www.deepfun.com/coliberation/ : Bernard “Bernie” De Koven’s blog. A source of provocative ideas on why and how to indulge in creative fun as part of a group.

http://bit.ly/PV635method: A YouTube video describing the “6-3-5 method,” which offers an alternative to traditional brainstorming that attempts to draw and expand upon more ideas from a group of six people.

http://bit.ly/URuMVG: An article in the Minnesota Daily describing how groups of students, faculty members, and community  leaders  envisioned  problems  facing higher education and developed pragmatic proposals for solving them.

http://www.co-intelligence.org/I-decisionmakingwithout.html (“How to Make a Decision Without Making a Decision”): An article describing how guided “non- decision-making” can be used by groups to discover what the author refers to as “big obvious truths.”

http://www.tobe.net/ : The website of Dynamic Facilitation Associates, a non-profit organization dedicated to teaching groups how to create choices through intentional facilitation. One of the site’s pages, http://www.co-intelligence.org/ dynamicfacilitationGT.html , describes “Co-Counseling” and compassionate communication as further facilitation tools.

Supplemental Videos

• Adler, R. (1996).  Communicating at work: principles and practices for business and the professions. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. ↵
• McLean, (2005). The basics of interpersonal communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ↵
• Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Random House. ↵
• Parker, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Meeting excellence: 33 tools to lead meetings that get results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ↵
• Hartley, P., & Dawson, M. (2010). Success in groupwork. New York: St. Martin’s Press. ↵
• Dictionary of Conflict Resolution, Wiley . Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/wileyconfres/consensus ↵
• Tavris, C., &  Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me). Orlando, FL: Harcourt ↵
• Turner, D. (1991, March 23). Slaves of habit—we lose when there’s no room for interruptions in our lives. Seattle Times . Retrieved from ProQuest Database. ↵
• Rondon, N. (2006, Meditate. Current Health 2 (32), 20–23. Retrieved from ProQuest Database ↵
• Matson, E. (1996, April-May). The seven sins of deadly meetings. Fast Company , 122. ↵

Method of ranking each possible solution according to its probable impact.

The process of choosing among options and arriving at a position, judgment, or action.

Routine in nature (applicable to fundamental elements and considerations of how an organization or process works).

Determined or executed by one person alone.

A discussion in which members of a group express views and identify alternative but reach no decision and take no action.

A process of making a decision whereby the vote of more than half a group’s members are considered to be decisive.

A process of making a decision whereby twice as many voters have to approve of a proposal than oppose it in order for the proposal to be accepted.

A condition in which no one in a group has explicitly stated objections to a proposal or decision.

Seriously and honestly, as in a decision-making or conflict situation.

In groups, to make work easier or less difficult; to help bring about growth.

Capable of balancing differing and sometimes conflicting forces so as to maintain continuous movement in a chosen direction.

In groups, an approach which assumes that members are generally honorable, industrious, trustworthy, and cooperative.

Dynamics of Group Communication Copyright © 2021 by Andrea Polites is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.1: Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 53875

• Kerry Osborne
• College of the Canyons

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.
• Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
• Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
• Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
• Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.

Group Problem Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.

Problems of all sorts have three common components :

• An undesirable situation . When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
• A desired situation . Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation . These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance. Katherine Adams and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 222–23.

• Task difficulty . Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
• Number of possible solutions . There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem . When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem . Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance . In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process. Ernest G. Bormann and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication, 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13. As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way. Katherine Adams and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 229. At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement. Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

“Getting Competent” - Problem Solving and Group Presentations

Giving a group presentation requires that individual group members and the group as a whole solve many problems and make many decisions. Although having more people involved in a presentation increases logistical difficulties and has the potential to create more conflict, a well-prepared and well-delivered group presentation can be more engaging and effective than a typical presentation. The main problems facing a group giving a presentation are (1) dividing responsibilities, (2) coordinating schedules and time management, and (3) working out the logistics of the presentation delivery.

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn’t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group’s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings. Chaunce Stanton, “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills, November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012,  http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people’s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members’ commitment.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn’t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space. Chaunce Stanton, “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills, November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012,  http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach . In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his or her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they aren’t fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you’re going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don’t want presenters huddled in a corner until it’s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.

• Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?
• Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making. Rodney W. Napier and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292. Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they’ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective:

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming.

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session . Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should only go on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session . This session shouldn’t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas . After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas . Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn’t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract and can’t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to not throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members. Andre L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92. This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn’t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they’ve finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 8.1 "Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques" reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn’t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn’t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that’s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

“Getting Critical” - Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts. Edward de Bono, Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

• White hat . Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
• Red hat . Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
• Black hat . Negative—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
• Yellow hat . Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
• Green hat . Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
• Blue hat . Philosophical—uses meta-communication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” in order to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

• This decision-making method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
• What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
• Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision Making

A group’s situational context affects decision making. One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members can’t know what other group members are thinking, whether or not they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. So the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong . Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase . Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase . Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning . Group members must go back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious.

• The economic decision maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
• The aesthetic decision maker makes decisions based on form and harmony, desiring a solution that is elegant and in sync with the surroundings.
• The theoretical decision maker wants to discover the truth through rationality.
• The social decision maker emphasizes the personal impact of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
• The political decision maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or property as divided into groups that have different value.
• The religious decision maker seeks to identify with a larger purpose, works to unify others under that goal, and commits to a viewpoint, often denying one side and being dedicated to the other.

In the United States, economic, political, and theoretical decision making tend to be more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on competition and efficiency. But situational context, as we discussed before, can also influence our decision making.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional. John F. Cragan and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Groups: Theory, Practice, Skills, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999), 139. The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

• Dominant versus submissive . Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more direct eye contact, seek leadership positions, and take control over decision-making processes. More submissive members are reserved, contribute to the group only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and leave their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
• Friendly versus unfriendly . Group members on the friendly side of the continuum find a balance between talking and listening, don’t try to win at the expense of other group members, are flexible but not weak, and value democratic decision making. Unfriendly group members are disagreeable, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct it in their own interest rather than in the interest of the group.
• Instrumental versus emotional . Instrumental group members are emotionally neutral, objective, analytical, task-oriented, and committed followers, which leads them to work hard and contribute to the group’s decision making as long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional group members are creative, playful, independent, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist group norms or decision-making structures, and switch often from relational to task focus.

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups. Brenda J. Allen, Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity, 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5. Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups. Beth Bonniwell Haslett and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research, ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133. Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives. David C. Thomas, “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63. Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone doesn’t like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters. Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly.Beth Bonniwell Haslett and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research, ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 122.

Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are more similar than different in terms of race and age. This ease of communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice some creativity. As we learned earlier, groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision making and creativity of output.

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her.Brenda J. Allen, Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity, 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 176. The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation . Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their mid-sixties to mid-eighties, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War. Gerald Clarke, “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.
• The Baby Boomers . Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to mid-sixties, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation X . Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to mid-forties, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y . Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just starting to enter into the workforce and have been greatly affected by the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions.

Key Takeaways

• Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every problem also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.
• The group problem-solving process has five steps:
• Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
• Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
• Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
• Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
• Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
• Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
• Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.
• Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
• Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
• Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
• Scenario 1 . Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
• Scenario 2 . Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
• Scenario 1 : Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
• Scenario 2 : Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
• Scenario 3 : Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
• Scenario 4 : Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
• Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Contributors and Attributions

• Template:ContribCCComm120

• Investigates
• Houston Life
• Newsletters

WEATHER ALERT

5 warnings in effect for 7 counties in the area

As thailand gasps through another haze season, researchers hope a fire-charting app can help.

Huizhong Wu

Associated Press

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

A member of the Pakanyo tribe stands near a fire set in protected forest land at Chiang Mai province, Thailand, Monday, April 22, 2024. The Pakanyo, who have carried out the practice of controlled burns as long as they have lived in these hills near Chiang Mai, a top tourist destination, say they get blamed by city dwellers for fouling the air and damaging forest land. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit)

SAMOENG – When the haze season comes, village chief Nanthawat Tiengtrongsakun and his tribesmen start preparing the land for fire.

They cut shrubs and trees on their small parcels of land, then set controlled burns that will clear their fields for planting — and send up plumes of smoke that add to some of the worst air in the world. It’s a slightly sweet gray haze that blurs the mountains in this part of northern Thailand to a faint outline, makes the air itself feel solid and turns breathing and swallowing painful for some.

Recommended Videos

The Pakanyo, who have carried out the practice as long as they have lived in these hills about 90 minutes from Chiang Mai, a top tourist destination, say they get blamed by city dwellers for fouling the air and damaging forest land.

“We are the ethnic group that preserves the forest, but other people have the concern that we are destroying the forest,” Tiengtrongsakun said. “My argument to them is that we have been living (here) for generations. If we are the cause of the damage, the forest around us would have to be all gone.”

The Pakanyo are just a small part of a cluster of factors that show how deeply fire is ingrained in local practices and why Thailand’s air pollution issue is so intractable.

During the haze season, from February to April, Chiang Mai city regularly tops the list of the world’s worst cities for air pollution. In March and April, its levels of fine particulate matter — things like dust, dirt, soot and smoke that get into lungs and even bloodstreams — are on average about 20 times the World Health Organization's recommended limit for exposure.

The city is at the forefront of the air pollution fight in Thailand in part because of its toxic air quality index readings, but also because it is home to a strong civil society and a meaningful local government effort to tackle the issue. And that effort has been reinforced by Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, who has visited Chiang Mai four times since taking office last summer. He's called Chiang Mai a “model” that other places in Thailand should learn from, and last fall pledged to push through clean air legislation to "ensure that access to clean air is a basic human right for all.”

Dirty air has become a fixture for public discussion in Thailand over the past two decades, but despite significant research and advocacy, the problem persists.

Air pollution in northern Thailand has been traditionally blamed on farmers who grow corn and sell it to big agro-food companies like CP Foods to be used as animal feed. There are other ways to deal with stubble, like biochar, which involves burning in a low-oxygen environment that means lower particulate emissions. But that requires significant labor in highland areas. And tilling the stubble into the soil, even if the mostly subsistence farmers had the equipment, would be difficult on the mostly hilly terrain.

CP said in March it had set up a tracing system to avoid buying corn produced on deforested or burned land. The same month, Srettha said he plans to ban imports of corn grown on land cleared by burning.

But the problem is wider than northern Thailand. Researchers say corn cultivation has mostly shifted into neighboring Myanmar and Laos, where stubble-burning is also practiced. Srettha has set up a working group with those countries aimed at cutting down the practice, and invited Cambodia to join, too.

Researchers at Chiang Mai University traced the sources of air pollution affecting the city, and in a paper published in April in the journal Atmospheric Environment, reported that more than 51% of the haze came from biomass burning — material like leaves or crop stubble. The second-largest share, about 23%, was long-range pollution from other countries, most likely India, they said.

Fire is a deep part of the culture in northern Thailand, featured in local sayings that signal the coming of a period of growth and renewal. In people’s day-to-day lives, it's used in clearing the forest floor to manage wildfires, or to clear space for an expensive mushroom to grow that will bring in better income, or to clear the ground of noisy leaves as part of hunting practices.

Fire is often used as a form of protest in Thailand, too, said Olivier Evrard, a Thailand-based senior researcher at French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD). In 2018, a national controversy erupted when locals discovered that a branch of the judiciary had built a housing and residential complex in protected forest land at the base of a sacred mountain outside Chiang Mai. They eventually vacated the premises owing to the backlash, but fires are still set near the site every year, likely in protest.

There's been no shortage of policies attempting to regulate the burning. Thailand issued a national zero-burning directive starting in 2013, with different provinces implementing a blanket ban on burning at different times.

But people responded by burning before and after the zero-burn period, extending the haze season’s duration, said Mary Mostafanezhad, a professor at the University of Hawaii who has studied air pollution in Chiang Mai. After seeing that the zero-burning policy did not work, Chiang Mai province adopted a newer policy: Fires could be set, as long as you applied beforehand.

The fires are to be submitted via FireD, an app developed by Chiang Mai university professor Chakrit Chotamonsak. The app uses weather and satellite data to predict if a fire on a particular day will cause more pollution or whether conditions will blow away the smoke and pollutants.

The researchers estimate that as many as half the fires in the province aren't registered, but they still consider the app a positive step. Even the decision to use FireD, which is the transliteration of “good fire” in Thai, in 2021 was an important shift, said Chaya Vaddhanaphuti, an independent researcher who had worked with the FireD team.

“This changes the perspective that fire was seen as a bad image, fire was seen as savage,” he said, noting that many in rural northern Thailand depend on fire.

Yet, to the villagers, it’s strange being asked to fill out paperwork for permission to do what they already know how to do — set a prescribed burn in good weather so they can clear a patch of land for the coming year’s crops.

Tiengtrongsakun, the Pakanyo chief in the village of Ban Mae Lan Kham, this year did paperwork for 100 households who needed to start a fire to clear their fields. Not everyone in the village speaks Thai or understands the latest government policy.

“If we hand them the document or registration form, they don’t know what to do with it,” he said. “Often they just throw the papers away.”

Researchers say policymakers need to look at the conditions of people's lives and consider the details of which land is being burned and why. But it's difficult because of politics and economics. Many of the people living in the hills surrounding Chiang Mai belong to various tribal groups not formally recognized by the Thai government. Others struggle with access to good education and jobs. For now, burning remains the most efficient and cheapest way for people to do what they need to do, whether it's farming, hunting or clearing the forest floor.

“If burning is the easiest and most cost-efficient way to grow your crops, or to make a living, until that is not true, it’s going to continue to happen,” said Mostafanezhad.

AP reporter Napat Kongsawad and producer Vasapa Wanichwethin contributed to this report.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

The Shaky Foundation of Trump’s Lead: Disengaged Voters

The Biden team faces questions of its own: Why have these voters backed away from him, and can his campaign find a way to reach them?

• Share full article

By Nate Cohn

The polls have shown Donald J. Trump with an edge for eight straight months, but there’s one big flashing warning sign suggesting that his advantage might not be quite as stable as it looks.

That warning sign: His narrow lead is built on gains among voters who aren’t paying close attention to politics, who don’t follow traditional news and who don’t regularly vote.

To an extent that hasn’t been true in New York Times/Siena College polling in the last eight years, disengaged voters are driving the overall polling results and the story line about the election.

President Biden has actually led the last three Times/Siena national polls among those who voted in the 2020 election, even as he has trailed among registered voters overall. And looking back over the last few years, almost all of Mr. Trump’s gains have come from these less engaged voters.

Vote preference of registered voters,

based on Times/Siena surveys

Biden leads

Trump leads

Nonvoters have moved

from Biden to Trump

Importantly, these disengaged low-turnout voters are often from predominantly Democratic constituencies. Many continue to identify as Democratic-leaning and still back Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, but they nonetheless are backing away from Mr. Biden in startling numbers. In our polling, Mr. Biden wins just three-quarters of Democratic-leaning voters who didn’t vote in the 2022 midterm election, even as almost all high-turnout Democratic-leaners continue to support him.

Source: New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College polls in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada

Vote preference among Democratic-leaning

voters in battleground states

Vote history

Voted ’22

Voted ’20, not ’22

Didn't vote ’20 or ’22

Attention to news

Most of the time

About half of the time

Some of the time

News source

National media

Local media

Social media

Attention to Trump trial

A lot of attention

Some attention

Only a little attention

No attention at all

Vote preference among Democratic-

leaning voters in battleground states

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .