Process Did Not Respond Within the Expected Timeframe Please Try Again Telnet Cisco Switch

14.iii Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Learning Objectives

1. Discuss the common components and characteristics of bug.
2. Explicate the 5 steps of the grouping problem-solving process.
3. Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
4. Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
5. Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and determination making that we will discuss adjacent may seem obvious, we often don't think to or choose not to apply them. Instead, we commencement working on a trouble and later on realize we are lost and take 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 upward some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I take developed a great respect for the importance of avant-garde planning. Information technology's frustrating to get to a crucial signal in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to bulldoze back to the hardware store to go something that you didn't recall to become earlier, or have to completely get-go over. In this section, we will talk over the group problem-solving process, methods of determination making, and influences on these processes.

Group Trouble Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic state of affairs to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, merely some mutual problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or denizen 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):

1. An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn't a trouble.
2. A desired situation. Even though it may only exist a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable state of affairs. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can exist accomplished, although solutions are non however generated.
3. 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 about work, and it is the office where determination making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can likewise take the form of people who are working against the grouping, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Give-and-take of these three elements of a trouble helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these iii full general elements are present in each problem, the group should as well accost specific characteristics of the problem. 5 common and of import characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, grouping member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

1. Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more circuitous. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in society to develop a shared foundational cognition. This typically requires individual work exterior of the group and frequent grouping meetings to share information.
2. Number of possible solutions. In that location are normally multiple means to solve a problem or complete a job, merely some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a embankment firm for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but in that location are nonetheless a limited number of things to do—for case, taping and boarding upwardly windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose exterior objects. Other bug may be more than creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could as well entail many different types of innovation with layout and blueprint.
3. Grouping member involvement in trouble. When grouping members are interested in the problem, they volition be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and noesis about the problem may desire more than liberty to develop and implement solutions, while groups with depression interest may prefer a leader who provides construction and direction.
4. Group familiarity with trouble. Some groups run into a trouble 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 ready its firm for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding take to revisit a budget every yr, and in contempo years, groups have had to go more than creative with budgets equally funding has been cutting in nearly every sector. When group members aren't familiar with a problem, they volition need to do background research on what similar groups take washed and may too demand to bring in exterior experts.
5. Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the conclusion will touch on and how much "buy-in" from others the grouping needs in order for their solution to exist successfully implemented. Some modest groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are accountable only to themselves. When a small grouping is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it tin be very difficult to develop solutions that volition be accepted by all. In such cases, groups volition want to poll those who volition be afflicted by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn't accept buy-in from stakeholders can all the same lead to failure.

Grouping trouble solving can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.

Grouping Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar trouble-solving models based on U.s.a. American scholar John Dewey's reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). Every bit you read through the steps in the process, think most how you tin can apply what nosotros learned regarding the full general and specific elements of issues. 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 grouping performance and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that practice not have an established history of working together and volition simply be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each pace of the procedure, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or strength a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively bear upon the group'south cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem past considering the iii elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the manner (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current state of affairs, without proposing solutions or evaluating the data. 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/of import? What accept the furnishings been so far? What, if whatsoever, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this phase, the grouping should exist able to compose a single judgement that summarizes the trouble called a problem statement. Avoid diction in the problem argument or question that hints at potential solutions. A small-scale group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the post-obit problem statement: "Our state does non currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected upstanding violations by urban center officials."

Footstep 2: Analyze the Problem

During this footstep a grouping should analyze the problem and the group's relationship to the problem. Whereas the beginning step involved exploring the "what" related to the trouble, this step focuses on the "why." At this stage, group members tin discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may too want to brainstorm setting out an agenda or timeline for the group'southward problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the 5 common trouble variables discussed before. Here are 2 examples of questions that the grouping formed to address ethics violations might inquire: Why doesn't our city have an ideals reporting mechanism? Practice cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group tin can pose a trouble question that will guide the grouping every bit it generates possible solutions. "How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of metropolis officials and how will such reports exist processed and addressed?" Every bit you tin can come across, the problem question is more than circuitous than the problem statement, since the grouping has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during stride 2.

Step iii: Generate Possible Solutions

During this stride, group members generate possible solutions to the trouble. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, just proposed and clarified. The question should be what could nosotros exercise to address this trouble, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group fellow member to question another person'due south idea past request something like "What do you lot mean?" or "Could you explain your reasoning more than?" Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better ascertain or more fully clarify a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the trouble separately, making certain to accept multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely tin can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would demand to generate solutions for all 3 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, east-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record," and and then on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include "daily by a newly appointed ideals officer, weekly past a nonpartisan nongovernment employee," and and then on. Possible solutions for the third function of the trouble (How will reports be addressed?) may include "by a newly appointed ideals commission, by the defendant's supervisor, by the city manager," and so on.

Step four: Evaluate Solutions

During this pace, solutions can exist critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more than obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative furnishings. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their conclusion or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set listing of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions tin exist evaluated based on how well they fit with the grouping's accuse and the abilities of the group. To practise this, group members may ask, "Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?" and "Can the solution actually exist 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, sally during this pace of problem solving, and group members will need to utilise effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is function of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly like models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can employ. For example, to narrow the listing of proposed solutions, grouping members may determine by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are besides more complex decision-making models like the "half dozen hats method," which nosotros will discuss afterward. In one case the final determination is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may exist beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to filibuster the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate information technology outside of the group context.

Step v: Implement and Appraise the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not exist rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or filibuster 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, information technology may exist 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 exam to find the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Earlier implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, "How will nosotros 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 exist responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, volition the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Once a solution has been reached and the group has the "green light" to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making certain to consider possible consequences and address them every bit needed.

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people within and outside the group. Group members may likewise 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 item group of stakeholders. Concluding, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will go to decide if information technology volition stay together and proceed working on other tasks or if it volition disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group's fate.

"Getting Competent"

Trouble Solving and Group Presentations

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

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the offset coming together and and so trying to fit information technology all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group projection) is non the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several unlike people into a seamless final production takes fourth dimension and attempt, 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 exercise work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will assist make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete i part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members volition play openly so there isn't role confusion. At that place could be i point person for keeping track of the group'south progress and schedule, one indicate person for communication, one signal person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn't exercise all that work on his or her own but help focus the group's attention on his or her specific area during group meetings (Stanton, 2009).

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people's decorated lives. From the outset, information technology should be conspicuously communicated that the group needs to spend considerable fourth dimension in contiguous meetings, and group members should know that they may have to brand 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' delivery.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may exist easier for a grouping to assign each member to create a 5-minute segment and so transition from 1 person to the adjacent, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning private speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows anybody to become familiar with the content, which tin help if a person doesn't show upwardly to present and during the question-and-respond department. In one case 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 starting time, if speakers will introduce themselves at the outset, or if introductions volition 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 1 person control them may aid prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how yous're going to utilize the infinite. 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. Y'all don't want presenters huddled in a corner until it's their plow to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.

1. Of the iii chief bug facing group presenters, which practise you retrieve is the nigh challenging and why?
2. Why exercise you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to separate the parts upwards and have members work on them independently earlier coming back together and integrating each role? What problems sally from this method? In what means might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to dissimilar speakers be improve than the more than divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal conclusion making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, nosotros face some challenges that nosotros exercise not face up in our personal decision making, but we besides stand to do good from some advantages of group determination making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic simply really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the grouping leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more fourth dimension than private decisions and can be burdensome if some group members practice not exercise their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are oft more than informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a trouble through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also exist more circuitous 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 as well benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of grouping advice that we discussed before. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, maybe thinking that they'll work things out as they get. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged give-and-take, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we volition learn some practices that volition prepare us for expert determination making and some specific techniques nosotros tin apply to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Determination Making

Earlier groups can make a determination, they demand to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although well-nigh 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 post-obit 4 rules must be followed for the technique to exist effective (Osborn, 1959):

1. Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
2. Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
3. Quantity of ideas, non quality, is the goal.
4. New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

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

1. Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more than apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime number group members for task-related thought generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the grouping and should merely get on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could enquire, "If our grouping formed a band, what would we be called?" or "What other purposes could a mailbox serve?" In the previous examples, the showtime warm upwardly gets the group's more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
2. Do the actual brainstorming session. This session shouldn't last more than thirty minutes and should follow the 4 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.
3. Eliminate indistinguishable ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members tin can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the aforementioned or very similar.
4. Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if whatever ideas need description. And then effort to theme or group ideas together in some orderly way. Since "wild and crazy" ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may demand description. If it becomes clear that there isn't really a foundation to an idea and that information technology is too vague or abstract and can't exist clarified, it may be eliminated. As a circumspection though, information technology 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 grouping technique guides determination making through a 4-pace process that includes thought generation and evaluation and seeks to arm-twist equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the process involves all group members systematically, which fixes the trouble of uneven participation during discussions. Since anybody contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

1. Silently and individually list ideas.
2. Create a principal listing of ideas.
3. Clarify ideas as needed.
4. Take a secret vote to rank group members' acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members piece of work quietly, in the same infinite, to write down every thought they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn't have more twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to apply brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn't evaluate ideas as they are generated. Inquire grouping members to remain silent once they've finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second stride, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a fourth dimension. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Continue track of how many times each thought comes up, as that could be an thought that warrants more discussion. Go along this procedure until all the ideas take been shared. Equally a note to facilitators, some group members may brainstorm to edit their listing or self-censor when asked to provide ane of their ideas. To limit a person's apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I take 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 tin can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master listing. Do not let this discussion devious into evaluation of ideas. To assist avert an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to become from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(due south) of the idea in question for description.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master listing. If the listing is long, y'all may ask grouping members to rank only their top v or so choices. The facilitator and so takes up the undercover ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea tin then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not behave a group all the way through to the point of conclusion; rather, information technology sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the claim of the pinnacle ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some controlling techniques involve determining a grade of activeness based on the level of agreement amid the group members. These methods include majority, skilful, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 "Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Controlling Techniques" reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Bulk rule is a simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus ane.

Becky McCray – Voting – CC Past-NC-ND 2.0.

Majority rule is a unremarkably used determination-making technique in which a bulk (one-half plus one) must agree earlier a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a newspaper election, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority pick. Many controlling bodies, including the Usa House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Courtroom, utilise majority dominion to make decisions, which shows that information technology is oft associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets i vote and each vote counts as. Of course, other individuals and mediated letters can influence a person'southward vote, just since the voting power is spread out over all group members, information technology is non easy for one person or party to take control of the controlling procedure. 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 conclusion.

Minority rule is a controlling technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other grouping members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may exist buy-in from others in the grouping, especially if the members of the group didn't have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, purchase-in volition vary based on group members' level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may exist more than accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn't. Every bit with bulk rule, this technique tin exist time saving. Unlike majority rule, 1 person or party tin have control over the decision-making procedure. This type of decision making is more like 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 organisation of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the determination 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 farther debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, exist cautious that this isn't a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy word. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the fourth dimension and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more probable to exist committed to the determination because of their investment in reaching information technology. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with merely not ane 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 14.ane Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-making Techniques

Determination-Making Technique	Pros	Cons
Majority rule	Quick Efficient in large groups Each vote counts as	Shut decisions (5–4) may reduce internal and external "purchase-in" Doesn't take advantage of group synergy to develop alternatives that more members tin support Minority may feel alienated
Minority rule by expert	Quick Conclusion quality is improve than what less knowledgeable people could produce Experts are typically objective and less piece of cake to influence	Expertise must be verified Experts can be difficult to observe / pay for Grouping members may feel useless
Minority dominion by say-so	Quick Buy-in could be high if authority is respected	Authority may not be seen as legitimate, leading to less purchase-in Group members may try to sway the authority or compete for his or her attention Unethical regime could brand decisions that benefit them and harm group members
Consensus rule	High-quality decisions due to time invested Higher level of commitment considering of participation in decision Satisfaction with determination because of shared agreement	Time consuming Difficult to manage thought and personal conflict that tin can sally as ideas are debated Decision may be OK simply non ideal

"Getting Critical"

Six Hats Method of Determination Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since go 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 let grouping members to play different roles and see a problem or determination from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a dissimilar way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we call back. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

• White chapeau. Objective—focuses on seeking data such as information and facts and and then processes that information in a neutral style.
• Ruby 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 well-nigh suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
• Dark-green hat. Artistic—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks "outside the box."
• Blueish lid. Philosophical—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what chapeau and when group members modify hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the grouping leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and propose that the grouping start their decision-making procedure with some "White Hat thinking" in order to procedure through facts and other available data. During this phase, the group could besides procedure through what other groups take done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could brainstorm an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of "Yellow Hat thinking" to identify potential positive outcomes, then "Black Hat thinking" to permit group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then "Red Lid thinking" to get people's gut reactions to the previous discussion, and then "Light-green Hat thinking" to identify other possible solutions that are more than tailored to the grouping'due south situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would desire to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Lid should exist familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of fourth dimension based on the problem and the group members. Each circular of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (2 to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

1. This controlling method has been praised because it allows group members to "switch gears" in their thinking and allows for office playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How tin can this assistance raise critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would exist best for a critical thinking sequence?
2. What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group upwardly into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would outcome from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Cerise and White together, so on?
3. Based on your preferred means of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you lot? Which would be the almost challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the controlling process. For example, how might a group'south independence or access to resources bear upon 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 Determination Making

A group'due south situational context affects determination making. I key situational chemical element is the caste 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 approving processes before they can practise anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is doubtfulness. In general, groups bargain with more than uncertainty in decision making than exercise individuals considering of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual grouping members tin't know what other group members are thinking, whether or non they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the grouping. And then the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as information technology adds to doubtfulness and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. Start, the nature of the group'south job or problem affects its ability to go information. Group members can more easily make decisions near a problem when other groups accept similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can acquire from other situations and apply what information technology learns. 2d, the group must have access to flows of data. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to practice research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members' formal and information network connections likewise get important situational influences.

The urgency of a determination tin can have a major influence on the decision-making procedure. Equally a situation becomes more urgent, information technology requires more specific decision-making methods and types of communication.

Judith E. Bell – Urgent – CC Past-SA 2.0.

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

1. Something goes wrong. Group members must make up one's mind how to prepare or finish something. Instance—a firehouse coiffure finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must exist closed down.
2. Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more than efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
3. Something goes wrong and expectations modify or increase. Group members must fix/finish and go more efficient/effective. Instance—the firehouse coiffure has to close one-half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding commune.
4. The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must get back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can exist done differently. Case—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 upward with a cleaved organization. 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 economical, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious (Spranger, 1928).

• The economic determination maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
• The artful determination 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 observe the truth through rationality.
• The social decision maker emphasizes the personal touch on of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
• The political conclusion maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or belongings 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 ane side and being dedicated to the other.

In the United States, economical, political, and theoretical determination making tend to exist more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on contest and efficiency. But situational context, every bit nosotros discussed before, can also influence our determination making.

Personality affects decision making. For example, "economic" determination makers decide based on what is practical and useful.

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

• Ascendant versus submissive. Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more straight eye contact, seek leadership positions, and accept command over decision-making processes. More than submissive members are reserved, contribute to the grouping only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and get out their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
• Friendly versus unfriendly. Grouping members on the friendly side of the continuum find a residual betwixt 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 bellicose, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct information technology 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 difficult and contribute to the group's conclusion making equally long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional grouping members are creative, playful, contained, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist grouping 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 deviation. Demographic changes in the United states of america and increases in engineering that can bring different people together make it more than likely that we volition 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 than 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 accept ameliorate overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Additionally, when group members take time to go to know each other and competently communicate beyond their differences, the advantages of diversity include better conclusion making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups ofttimes operate nether time constraints and other pressures that brand the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for disharmonize, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn't solely due to the presence of diverseness. We will at present look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations nosotros've learned nigh already in this volume tin play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic variety in terms of demographics tin as well influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Grouping Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, ability altitude, and loftier-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence grouping decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and directly communication. This could manifest in behaviors such equally dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and so 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, substantially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at manus. Considering of this, they too 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 similar negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more than indirect communication that doesn't claiming the face of other group members or the grouping'due south leader. In a group equanimous of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they get public.

Ability distance can likewise affect grouping interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a ready place in social club that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-altitude cultures would probable appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership mode and prefer groups in which members take articulate and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-altitude orientation, members with college condition would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower condition may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not identify as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in conclusion making. Group members from low-ability-altitude cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership fashion.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also bear on group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication way in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such equally nonverbal cues and silence. Grouping members from high-context cultures may avert saying something directly, bold that other group members will sympathise the intended meaning fifty-fifty if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed class of activity, he or she may say, "Permit's hash out this tomorrow," and hateful, "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 accept 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 instance, if someone doesn't like an idea, they might say, "I remember nosotros should consider more options. This 1 doesn't seem like the all-time we can practice."

In any of these cases, an private from ane civilisation operating in a group with people of a unlike cultural orientation could arrange to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with loftier ICC can besides adapt to a group fellow member with a unlike cultural orientation than the host civilisation. Fifty-fifty though these cultural orientations connect to values that touch our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit dissimilar communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While information technology is becoming more than likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to collaborate in groups that are various in terms of the cultural identities constitute within a single land or the subcultures institute within a larger cultural grouping.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For instance, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead grouping members (both male person and female person) to await that women will play the part of supporters or harmonizers inside the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may as well 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 contrary is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, inquiry shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. Nosotros are socialized to meet certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more than to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to make full 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 every bit powerful, and that when their piece of work isn't noticed they will exist more likely to brand it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a grouping are crucial for success, fifty-fifty in high-performance teams, that piece of work is non 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 advice that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is probable due to the irresolute organizational cultures from which much group piece of work emerges, which have now had more than than 60 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 showtime as many of the early male person researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed every bit a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more than 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 grouping members adopt a more masculine advice way for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more probable to adapt to a more masculine advice way. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors prefer a more feminine communication style. In brusque, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women arrange to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

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

In terms of historic period, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have 3 generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although iv generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their historic period group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the lesser. Today, yet, generations collaborate regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to take a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The electric current generations in the United states of america workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Built-in between 1925 and 1942, currently in their midsixties to mideighties, 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 Earth State of war 2, 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 midsixties, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the near populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they volition remain the predominant strength in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation Ten. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to midforties, this generation was the first to see technology similar cell phones and the Net make its mode 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 too have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born betwixt 1982 and 2000, "Millennials" equally they are also called are currently in their late teens upwards to most xxx years one-time. This generation is not as likely to retrieve a time without applied science such equally computers and cell phones. They are only 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 grouping members are of import to consider. Since we volition all work in diverse groups, we should exist prepared to accost potential challenges in lodge to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of grouping fourth dimension in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase grouping cohesion. We should exist sensitive but not let sensitivity create fright of "doing something wrong" that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing Chapter 8 "Culture and Communication" will give yous useful noesis to assist you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.

Primal Takeaways

• Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every trouble also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the trouble, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.

• The grouping problem-solving process has 5 steps:

  1. Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
  2. Clarify the trouble and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
  3. Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each ane.
  4. Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also appraise the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
  5. Implement and appraise 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 conclusion, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (ane) practise a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) exercise an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are non 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 (four) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In club to guide the idea-generation procedure and invite equal participation from group members, the group may too elect to use the nominal group technique.
• Common controlling techniques include bulk rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, just a majority, normally one-half plus one, must hold before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated say-so or good has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus dominion, all members of the group must agree on the same conclusion.

• Several factors influence the controlling procedure:

  • Situational factors include the degree of freedom a grouping has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the grouping and its task, the size of the group, the grouping'southward 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 determination making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the grouping makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.

Exercises

1. In terms of situational influences on grouping problem solving, chore difficulty, number of possible solutions, group interest in problem, group familiarity with problem, and demand for solution acceptance are 5 key variables discussed in this affiliate. For each of the two following scenarios, discuss how the situational context created by these variables might affect the grouping's communication climate and the way information technology goes about addressing its problem.
   • Scenario ane. Chore difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group involvement in problem is high, grouping familiarity with trouble is low, and demand for solution credence is loftier.
   • Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is depression, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution credence is low.
2. Getting integrated: Certain controlling techniques may work better than others in bookish, professional, personal, or civic contexts. For each of the post-obit scenarios, identify the decision-making technique that you call back would be best and explain why.
   • Scenario 1: Bookish. A professor asks his or her grade to decide whether the final exam should exist an in-course or take-home examination.
   • Scenario 2: Professional person. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a visitor-broad award.
   • Scenario iii: Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the holding and estate of a deceased family unit member who did not get out a will.
   • Scenario 4: Civic. A local co-operative of a political party needs to determine what five primal problems it wants to include in the national party's platform.
3. Grouping communication researchers take found that heterogeneous groups (composed of various members) have advantages over homogenous (more than similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diverseness enhanced your and/or the grouping's feel.

References

Adams, K., and Gloria K. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills, seventh ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 220–21.

Allen, B. J., Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity, 2d ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5.

Bormann, E. Chiliad., and Nancy C. Bormann, Constructive Small Grouping Communication, 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–xiii.

Clarke, G., "The Silent Generation Revisited," Fourth dimension, June 29, 1970, 46.

Cragan, J. F., and David W. Wright, Communication in Small-scale Grouping Discussions: An Integrated Arroyo, 3rd ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1991), 77–78.

de Bono, E., Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985).

Delbecq, A. L., and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, "A Group Procedure Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning," The Periodical of Practical Behavioral Scientific discipline 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92.

Haslett, B. B., and Jenn Ruebush, "What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Grouping Composition," in The Handbook of Grouping Communication Theory and Research, ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133.

Napier, R. W., and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience, 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292.

Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959).

Spranger, Eastward., Types of Men (New York: Steckert, 1928).

Stanton, C., "How to Deliver Grouping Presentations: The Unified Team Approach," Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills, November 3, 2009, accessed Baronial 28, 2012, http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach.

Thomas, D. C., "Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study," Periodical of Cross-Cultural Psychology thirty, no. 2 (1999): 242–63.

hernandezandem1997.blogspot.com

Source: https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/14-3-problem-solving-and-decision-making-in-groups/

Share this post