advantages and disadvantages of group problem solving

Career Development
Changing Careers
Choosing a Career
Unemployment
Work Abroad
Work from Home
Cover Letters
CVs & Resumes
Finding A Job
Interview Preparation
Social Media
Human Resources
Social Recruiting
Employee Recognition
Handling Conflicts
Health & Wellness
Productivity
Work Culture
Work Life Balance
Books and Videos
Celebrities
Entrepreneurship
Quotes & Tips
Success Stories
College & University
Courses & Training
Internships
Skills Development
Student Life
Book a Demo

AI and Automation Powered Recruitment Trends – 2022 Webinar

The biggest challenge of managing remote recruiters, the best chrome extensions for recruiters are, coronavirus and working from home policy best practices, how to write an elite executive resume 10 simple tips, top 30 recruitment mistakes: how to overcome them, what is an interview: definition, objectives, types & guidelines, 20 effective or successful job search strategies & techniques, “text messages – your new recruitment superhero” recorded webinar, find the top 10 it contract jobs employers are hiring in…, the real secret behind the best way to contact a candidate, candidate sourcing: what top recruiters are saying, what is omnichannel recruitment marketing, talent intelligence – what is it how to implement it, remote recruitment: everything you need to know, 4 old school business processes to leave behind in 2022, how to prevent coronavirus by disinfecting your home, the black lives matter movement and the workplace, yoga at workplace: simple yoga stretches to do at your desk, top 63 motivational and inspirational quotes by walt disney, 81 inspirational and motivational quotes by nelson mandela, 65 motivational and inspirational quotes by martin scorsese, most powerful empowering and inspiring quotes by beyonce, what is a credit score how to improve your credit score, who are the highest paid athletes in the world, top careers or jobs that pay $50 an hour, what are the highest paying jobs in new zealand.

Team Problem Solving: Advantages and Disadvantages

Most of the time in personal and professional life, executing work or task with the help of a team or with the team can deliver some sort of positive as well as negative impression. But it is necessary for a person to understand both sides of the coin and in this case, it is about team problem solving skills.

Apparently, all the positive and negative terms or else, in other words, these advantages and disadvantages of team problem solving will help in reducing the contrast behaviour of certain task handling.

Tips to Strengthen Team Problem Solving Skills:

Problem-solving skill is one of the best known and important trait every employee should possess. Most of the time even a small team problem gets bigger, as no employee would be willing to take an extra step to solve it or to stand for it.

“ As far as it’s not our own problem, we do not have to worry ” is the cheat code most of us have. And the main reason for developing such a tendency are our employers. Though they allow employees to think creatively and motivate to do things accordingly, but will metaphorically bite people’s heads off if anything goes wrong. This propensity makes their employees work like robots who can just act upon commands.

Now even if the above-mentioned one is considered as a part of training and coaching, whenever any group or team problem arises, managers need to install few approaches and strategies to tackle it effectively. This would allow the employee to join in a group and work on it.

How to Strengthen Your Team’s Problem Solving Skills?

Start working on team problem-solving by making smaller victories.
Do not act with anger when you have failed
Provide enough freedom to the employees for solving issues accordingly
Set up high expectations
Teach your group on how to frame problems
Motivate the group to take extra expertise
Motivate all the employees to form a group when solving team-related problems
Celebrate accomplishments and success

Advantages of Team Problem Solving:

When it comes to problem-solving in a team, the organization heads prefer their best people to solve that issue. And while solving those issues the board of members or a team of people work on that particular issue and conclude with the best possible solution for an issue.

1. Better thinking:

During team problem-solving process, a person might think of certain solutions which can be used to solve such issue for a temporary basis. But in case of team problem-solving sessions a team or group of people will try to put in all their individual thinking in that particular matter so that they can get an answer and solution for their problem.

Therefore, team problem-solving techniques helps to conclude with a better solution with better thinking.

2. Better risk handling:

It might seem a bit confusing for people that when it comes to risk, more people can handle a higher amount of risk. And that is very true because when a group person tries to handle the severity of the risk, it is quite possible that they can grow better in their professional outputs.

Therefore, team problem-solving methods can increase the risk factor in a very positive manner and moreover because of such team problem-solving ability, one can create better growth.

3. Better communication:

Problems can be solved in a better way with proper communication between people. And when it comes to a team or a group of persons, then it is easy to understand that they can communicate better as compared to others.

Therefore, team problem-solving method increases communication and better understanding between a group of people and this ultimately helps to solve the issues as soon as possible.

4. Increases understanding:

As it is explained earlier that team problem-solving methods can increase better communication between people from the same group and apparently such behavior can lead them to build better understanding between teammates.

Therefore, such type of understanding can help all the people from the group and their problem-solving ability. Moreover, this can turn itself as one of the advantages for the sake of organization and their growth.

5. Increased number of solutions:

Most of the time while working in an organization whenever some sort of problem occurs, then the organization heads will consider their experienced employees to understand the problem and try to get the possible solution for such problems.

In this course of action, most of the people prefer their best working team to come with some best solution and that is why people and most of the companies prefer their team problem-solving abilities to look at the wide range of possible solution for a single issue.

6. Helps to increase the team’s potential:

There are some situations wherein which a person can face some uncertain situation in terms of their professional parameters, but at that point of time, that person needs to think wisely regarding the issue. And the level of thinking can increase the chances of his or her potential and ability in relation to a problem.

Similarly, when it comes to team problem solving, then it is quite clear that the level of problem-solving with the help of a team can definitely increase the chances of the team’s potential.

7. Higher commitment:

Most probably when a team or a group of people working on a project experiences some sort of professional problems, then it is the team’s responsibility to solve that problem as soon as possible. And eventually, the problem might possibly reach its end with the efforts of the team.

Therefore, at the end of every single issue solving process, the team presents its higher-level commitment towards the problem’s solution.

8. Reduces the possibility of bias:

When a team performs a job or a task, then the efforts that the team have indulged in that task or project would be mainly considered as a team effort than an individual person effort. And eventually, the organization will reduce their bias behaviour with certain employees of their company.

Therefore, it is definitely understandable that by involving team problem-solving technique the employee and employers of the company both can be comfortable with the working environment.

9. Greater productive output:

As it is definitely expected that when a company or an organization works with their team efforts, then the company or an organization can experience a greater amount of productive output in terms of their profit margin.

Therefore, involving in good problem-solving skills and techniques can be beneficial for both the company and its directors. And eventually, this increases the profit ratio of the company which can ultimately increase the growth of the company.

10. Encourages creative ideas:

As most of the team members working in a particular team will be equally provided a chance of presenting their own creative ideas while discussing something necessary for the welfare of the company. And in that process of creative ideas, a team baring potential employees can present their problem-solving ideas for the sake of the overall growth of the company.

Therefore, as it has been explained earlier that because of the team problem-solving behaviour, the company can benefit in terms of their profit margin as compared to the other company working in the same field.

Disadvantages of Team Problem Solving:

As compared to the advantages of team problem solving, the disadvantages can deliberately present the difference of opinion within the working behaviour of the team members.

1. Increased competition:

Most of the time while working in a team a person’s individual efforts can be ignored because of the team. And that is because every team maintains its own team leader and every time if that team achieves some sort of excellence, then it is quite clear that the team leader will be acknowledged first.

In this process of acknowledging, the team members can be left out and that eventually brings up competition within the members of the team.

2. Level of confirmation:

When it comes to confirmation of it regarding a certain task or project, a person needs to understand that it never helps if a person is involved in a group or is a member of a group.

Therefore, it is very much necessary for every single person that he or she should know more about these team problem-solving abilities. Moreover, team problem solving is capable of a distinguished level of conformity.

3. Lack of objective guidelines:

Most of the time it happens in the team working behaviour that all the objective direction need not be followed because of the team leaders direction. In a team working behaviour, it is clear to everyone that if a team needs to work according to the prescribed way, then they need to follow a certain type of objective direction.

That direction will not be available with the team problem-solving ability as the team leader leads all the decisions in the process.

4. Time constraints:

Because of the team problem-solving methods, a person might not think about or bother about its timing. And that is necessary to understand, clear out all the fogs in a way. Time constraints are one of the disadvantages in the team problem-solving ability and method that never depend upon the number of people in the group.

People think that if a single group have a maximum number of members, then time constraints will be eliminated.

5. Unequal participation:

It is not necessary that if a team or a group of a certain number of people are part of the group, then they need to participate in all types of work or task. Most of the time it happens such as a team member might be interested in being a part of something interesting, but the team doesn’t let him or her participate in such an event.

Similarly, this type of behaviour creates unequal participation within the group and which eventually grow into something big in terms of drift and loss.

6. Unwillingness to participate:

Most of the while being a part of a team or a group some member might not feel interested to participate in all sorts of events or task assigned to that particular group, but the actual truth is that such type of behaviour can bring up some sort of communal issue within the group.

Therefore, unwillingness to participate can be considered as a decision of a person who is a part of the group, but because of that individual decision, the whole team benefits some great loss.

7. Lack of team spirit:

Working in a team or a group takes a lot of team spirit, but some people totally lack behind in such type of criteria and because of that the team or a group damages its reputation.

And that is why a group must contain those members who are more than interested in the team working behaviour and its environment. Therefore, while choosing a member of a team, a team leader must consider the level of comfortability in the participant about being a team player.

Components of Effective Team Problem Solving:

There are certain components when it comes to team problem-solving methods. And those components bring up all sorts of solution to any type of team issues or problems. These components also help to improve problem-solving skills. Therefore, it is necessary to understand all those components first to go ahead with a solution without any understanding.

1. An undesirable situation:

It is a very common component in team problem solving and that is because a person might not experience any type of trouble or problem with the desirable situation. And these desirable situations, eliminate a process of problem-solving on its own without any extra efforts.

Therefore, while considering this undesirable situation component, a person needs to understand all things about undesirable objectives.

2. Desired situation:

Most of the time it is a contrasting behaviour that people might experience threatened with the desired situation and that is common for everyone. Because most of the time in a common daily life people face all sorts of people and all those people might not experience the same desired situation as one, and that is why it gets a little weird with the team problem-solving.

Therefore, it is very necessary to understand the desired situation as well in the team problem-solving ways.

3. The difference between the desired and undesired situation:

That is because of the team playing availabilities. Most probably while being a part of a team a person or a member need to understand a thin line between desired and undesired situation.

And it is very much necessary for all the team members to clear out all the doubts with the desired and undesired situation. Therefore, things which create a difference between desired and undesired need to solved by the team altogether.

Conclusion:

Finally, the bottom line is that here we have provided all the advantages and disadvantages of team problem solving along with its own components which brings up all the necessary study materials regarding team problem-solving activity. Therefore, if anyone is interested to understand more about team problem solving, then they can refer all the above-mentioned points to continue their study in the same field of work.

14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

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 (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 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 (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. 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 can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.

Muness Castle – Problem Solving – CC BY-SA 2.0.

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). 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 (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 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?

Once a solution has been reached and the group has the “green light” to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making sure to consider possible consequences and address them as needed.

Jocko Benoit – Prodigal Light – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

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 (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 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 (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 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 (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 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 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 (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, 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 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 simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus one.

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

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.

Table 14.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques

“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.

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 urgency of a decision can have a major influence on the decision-making process. As a situation becomes more urgent, it requires more specific decision-making methods and types of communication.

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

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 (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 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.

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

One Way Stock – Tough Decisions Ahead – CC BY-ND 2.0.

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 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, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance 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 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 (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

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 (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 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 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 midsixties, 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 midforties, 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. Reviewing Chapter 8 “Culture and 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

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.

Several factors influence the decision-making process:

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., and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 220–21.

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

Bormann, E. G., and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication , 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13.

Clarke, G., “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.

Cragan, J. F., and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach , 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 Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 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 Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group 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, E., Types of Men (New York: Steckert, 1928).

Stanton, C., “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 .

Thomas, D. C., “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Solutions to Build Teams

Create aligned, high-performing teams

Solutions to Elevate Organizations

Practical solutions to lead change and manage talent

Our Approach

Teaming for success, lead your career, lead now manager, organizational design, employee experience, change management, our services, strategic planning, assessments, facilitation, certification.

The latest insights from Stewart's expert coaches and consultants.

Join hosts Daniel and Peter Stewart for the Leadership Growth Podcast.

View our webinars on-demand anytime.

Leadership Lessons

Timeless stories for the modern leader.

White Papers

In-depth insights from Stewart Leadership

Discover our award-winning books.

Watch Stewart Leadership in action.

Case Studies

See the results achieved by Stewart Leadership clients.

Tools & Guides

Find practical tools and in-depth guides.

About Stewart Leadership

Meet our team.

7 Advantages of Team Problem-Solving

Do you remember that old story about the blind men and the elephant? In the story, six men who lived in a village in India were born blind. They grew up curious about the world around them and often asked travelers to share their stories of life outside the village. One creature featured often in the tales they heard. They learned that elephants could trample forests but also that they could be ridden by the nobility. The men were fascinated by the idea of an elephant and would argue about it with each other.

“Elephants must be powerful giants if they can clear forests and build roads,” said one.

“No, you cannot be right. An elephant must be graceful and gentle if a princess would ride on its back,” said another.

“You are all wrong! An elephant must be a horrifying creature with a terrible horn that can pierce a man’s heart,” said the third blind man.

And so it went, day after day and night after night until the other villagers grew so tired of it that they arranged for the men to visit the palace and learn the truth about elephants for themselves.

When the blind men reached the palace, they were led to a courtyard with an elephant. They stepped forward to touch the strange creature that had been the source of so many arguments.

The first touched the die of the huge animal and declared, “An elephant is smooth and solid like a wall!” The second put his hands on the elephant’s trunk and declared it to be a snake; the third touched the elephant’s tusk and loudly proclaimed that they had been right all along. On it went down the line, with each blind man touching a different part of the elephant.

They were led out of the courtyard to a garden, where they began to argue more passionately than ever before. Their arguments grew so loud, with each man insisting that their understanding of the elephant was correct. Suddenly, an angry voice called out, “Stop shouting! How can each of you be so certain that you are right?”

The men recognized the voice of the Rajah and quieted instantly.

“An elephant is a very large animal,” said the Rajah kindly. “Each of you only touched one part. Perhaps if you put the parts together, you will see the truth.”

This story serves as a perfect reminder of the advantages that team problem-solving can bring to a team or an organization. Teams produce more successful results 80% of the time due to collective thinking. When everyone adds their individual thinking and works together toward a solution, the results include benefits every leader wants for their team, including stronger communication and a greater understanding of the challenge and the solution by all team members.

Here are 7 advantages that come with team problem-solving:

1. better communication.

All teams crave better communication, and solving problems with the whole team is a shortcut to achieving this goal. When working out a problem together, team members gain a better understanding of the issues involved.

Every team member brings a slightly different context to each problem. They can highlight the risks and benefits of any potential solution while staying informed about what is going on and how the activities of other team members will intersect with their area of responsibility.

2. increased understanding

Along with better communication, team problem-solving leads to a greater understanding of the context the team operates within and the roles and responsibilities of their colleagues. As team problems are typically complex, a collaborative approach helps team members gain some knowledge and appreciation for the work of other team members.

3. Better Risk Handling

With so many different perspectives, teams are better able to identify risks and mitigate them in advance. And because a team is better at anticipating the risks, they are more likely to assume a greater amount of risk if the reward is high, versus a single person accepting a high amount of risk on their own. This is especially true if the team has bought in, has confidence in their solution, and willingness to accept the consequences if success is not achieved.

4. Reduced possibility of bias

Wherever we go, our biases and preconceptions follow, and this can often get in the way of our individual problem-solving. Like the blind men in the story above, each team member may only be able to understand a fraction of the whole. When the entire team works together to solve the problem, the collective knowledge can be combined to create a greater understanding of both the problem and the solution.

5. Greater commitment

Problems that need to be solved collectively often require a high level of commitment. When a team faces a problem that they collectively need to solve together, and ideas and solutions are created, then individuals experience a higher level of commitment to the team and the team’s potential and the value the team brings to themselves individually.

6. greater increase in talent potential

New ideas create new opportunities. When solving problems in a team, the number of ideas generated broadens the team’s potential for success by creating pathways to develop and pursue those opportunities.

In addition to providing opportunities to develop new skills, team problem-solving prepares individuals to take on larger challenges – whether it is greater responsibility or advancement as a leader. Working through complex challenges, considering higher-level strategies, and synthesizing the inputs and ideas of others are required skills at the higher levels in any organization.

7. increased creativity

Team problem-solving generates more solutions, which then lead to greater and more productive outputs than any one person can likely generate. Better yet, those outputs are coordinated, and all aspects of the work contribute to the team’s success.

The process of brainstorming potential solutions naturally leads to creative ideas. When teams work together to solve a problem, they consider more solutions than they would when working as individuals. Often, ideas mentioned by others spark ideas that would have never been considered otherwise.

Like the blind men in the story, each team member brings a different understanding to each challenge. Each perspective may lack critical information, and it is only when the team works together to solve the problem that the whole challenge can be fully understood.

About the Author

7 TRENDS IN DEVELOPING GREAT MANAGERS

How to Have Good 1:1 Meetings

team with hands raised to vote on the new team charter

4 Vital Considerations for Your Team Charter

team working together to navigate the challenges of hyper-growth

5 Best Practices to Navigate the Challenges of Hyper-Growth

professional leader looking at the sky engaging in a little cloud watching

5 Reasons “Cloud Watching” Can Make You a Better Leader

smiling woman taking control of her personal development

5 Steps to Take Control of Your Personal Development

17 Major Pros and Cons of Group Decision Making

The group decision making process is a participatory event where multiple people can engage collectively to analyze the problem, and then develop a solution together. This process makes it possible to evaluate and consider several different courses of action that may be possible. The number of people that define a “group” varies based on the circumstances involved, but most organizations limit the number to seven or less.

These groups can be formal in nature, although many organizations prefer to keep the experience informal as a way to encourage creativity. Some groups are given the designation to come up with a specific goal or process that can help the larger team move forward. Others are tasked with a brainstorming session that benefits the individuals in the group alone. The decisions can be either structured or unstructured when results are achieved.

It is possible for the structure to lead toward an improved outcome when a variety of conditions that pertain to the chemistry of the group are satisfied.

There are several group decision making process and cons to evaluate if you are thinking about including this process with your team. Here are the key points to consider.

List of the Pros of Group Decision Making

1. It promotes the sharing of information between group members. The most significant advantage of the group decision making process is that it removes silos on your team. People are encouraged to share information with one another because every opinion is valid with this structure. It becomes possible to take into account a wider range of information because there are multiple views involved in each discussion. Everyone has the chance to contribute their unique expertise and experiences to the final solution.

2. It creates the foundation of a better decision. When a group comes together to make a decision collectively, then the judgment of everyone involved makes that process more intelligent and creative then if someone were tasked with doing it on their own. People are able to ask questions, collaborate, and discuss multiple ideas together as a way to identify strong solutions and complete recommendations.

This design makes it possible to observe a problem from different perspectives, which is the foundation of a better decision. Even if a leader is tasked with making the final choice, this advantage can help that person have more wisdom available to them for the process.

3. It can lead to a central position. When the group decision making process is a primary component of any decision that must be made, then it typically moves the solution from an extremist position to a centrist one. The ideas which come under discussion have all of the pros and cons of each one evaluated to determine what the best course of action should be. This process eliminates the potential for a single individual to guide an entire team down a path that everyone sees as being wrong without being able to do something about the situation.

4. It creates more investment in the mission and vision of the team. When people have an opportunity to take ownership over a decision or situation, then they are more likely to invest themselves in the final outcome. There is a greater commitment to the decisions made through the group decision making process because this effort encourages people to make an investment. It creates a spirit of cooperation that leads to a higher team moral over time. Even if the outcome doesn’t meet expectations, the group is willing to come together to create a better overall result.

5. It promotes higher levels of job satisfaction. When teams commit to a group decision making process, there is generally a higher rate of job satisfaction found at the individual level. When people are happier about going to work, then there is a direct correlation to the quality of communication that occurs in the workplace. Everyone gets the opportunity to learn from one another, thereby increasing the amount of knowledge they can use in every-day life. That makes it possible to cross-train in some situations to continue high levels of productivity even if someone is absent.

6. It involves intelligent risk-taking opportunities. Some people are unwilling to take risks when they have to do it on their own because of the potential for failure. When you place these individuals into a group decision making process, then they have more security to find an innovative solution because the risk factors involved are spread throughout the team. It makes it easier on each person involved with the group to become familiar with the problem, which allows for a potentially profitable decision to occur that some would be unable to find on their own.

7. It encourages collective thinking as a strength. Making decisions as a group is very different than making a choice as an individual. It makes it possible to find a diverse set of views that can create a positive outcome for everyone involved. Even when there are extreme views being offered as part of the group decision making process, the desire to compromise on a mutually beneficial outcome creates new opportunities that may be otherwise unavailable to everyone.

8. It increases the soundness of the organization. Whenever there is a decision that must be made, change is going to happen at some level. If there is one thing that most workers do not like about their workplace, it is the need to adapt to changing circumstances. When you can put everyone together in a room to discuss the problem that an organization faces, then it increases the soundness of its structure. There is a better chance that the team will come up with a cost-effective solution within a structure that is acceptable to everyone involved.

List of the Cons of Group Decision Making

1. It takes more time to reach a decision when using this process. The group decision making process is less efficient from a timing perspective because there are multiple voices involved. Each person has the opportunity to contribute their perspectives and experiences to the greater conversation. That requires more time than what a single person would require because there is more coordination, discussion, and participation. Unless there is a leader who can facilitate this process effectively, it is easier for teams to get lost in the minutia of details instead of dealing with the overall situation.

2. It can make everyone think that they carry a leadership role in the organization. Every organization relies on the leadership team to make effective decisions for everyone working on the mission or vision of the company. When you incorporate a group decision making process, then each person on that team is given a sliver of that leadership role. Although some individuals accept this responsibility in the form intended, many use this process as a way to expand their real or perceived power in the team environment. That can lead to reduced creativity because it discourages some team members to share their thoughts and opinions.

3. It can lead to a lower level of responsibility and accountability. When you put together a group to brainstorm a solution, everyone will be fast to except credit for a successful experience. If there is a bad decision that comes from this process, then it is easier for the individual members to deny any personal responsibility for the outcomes that were achieved. Being in a group situation makes it a simpler process to blame others for poor results.

4. It can contribute to a process that is called “groupthink.” Although the goal of the group decision making process is to come up with several different opinions to consider, there can be obstacles in place to this outcome. People often fight for their own ideas or opinions, which can create a bully pulpit during the discussion process. If one person stands out in a group that is apathetic, then there won’t be any other perspectives that become available. Some people will also agree with an idea that they don’t actually like because they want to avoid conflict within the group.

5. It relies on the expertise of each member to be successful. If you put people together in a group situation, then that does not guarantee that you will have a successful collaboration experience. The benefits that are available through the group decision making process only calm when there is enough experience and expertise in the group to solve the problem. When people can only offer opinions instead of facts to the discussion, then the possibility of a poor outcome increases under this situation.

The group must have the ability to recognize what the problems, obstacles, and solutions are to be effective when brainstorming a situation.

6. It can be a process that leads to polarization. There are times when a group decision may be inadequate for the solutions that are necessary for a problem that is under consideration. The individuals involved may move toward an extreme solution instead of taking a centrist approach. When this occurs, then the risks that the entire team will face in the future increase. Although there is the potential for massive rewards because of this process, it can also provide destructive elements to the culture of the workplace.

7. It creates a cost consideration that must come under evaluation. Because there is more time involved with the group decision making process, companies must make a salary investment in this structure that may cause their costs to rise. It requires time and money to find relevant information, arrange meetings, have discussions, and arrive at a consensus of relevance. If the budget is a significant factor in the choices that are being made each day, then an individual decision might be the better choice to pursue.

8. It can be influenced by interpersonal conflicts. Some people may choose not to participate in the group decision making effort because they have a personality or ethical conflict with other members of the team. When there is disagreement or disharmony involved with this process, then it is possible that the group may not arrive at a decision. This disadvantage is particularly powerful when the disruption occurs between leaders.

9. It can produce conflicting goals for an organization. There can sometimes be conflict between the goals of a group and the overall mission that an organization wants to achieve. When this disadvantage occurs, the group may decide to pursue their own goals instead of trying to create a benefit for the overall company. The group decision making process can sometimes come to the conclusion that self-improvement is a better solution than organizational betterment.

The pros and cons of the group decision making process encourage teams to compromise and share ideas in ways that help everyone. Although there is no guarantee of success from this process, when there are more people involved, then there are usually fewer risks to worry about at the end of the day. It encourages ownership without placing undue pressure on a specific individual to find the correct choice.

Prodigy Math
Prodigy English
Is a Premium Membership Worth It?
Promote a Growth Mindset
Help Your Child Who's Struggling with Math
Parent's Guide to Prodigy
Back to School
Assessments
Math Curriculum Coverage
English Curriculum Coverage
Teacher Resource Center
Administrators
Game Portal
Case Studies

5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Problem-Based Learning [+ Activity Design Steps]

Written by Marcus Guido

Teaching Strategies

Advantages of Problem-Based Learning
Disadvantages of Problem-Based Learning
Steps to Designing Problem-Based Learning Activities

Used since the 1960s, many teachers express concerns about the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) in certain classroom settings.

Whether you introduce the student-centred pedagogy as a one-time activity or mainstay exercise, grouping students together to solve open-ended problems can present pros and cons.

Below are five advantages and disadvantages of problem-based learning to help you determine if it can work in your classroom.

If you decide to introduce an activity, there are also design creation steps and a downloadable guide to keep at your desk for easy reference.

1. Development of Long-Term Knowledge Retention

Students who participate in problem-based learning activities can improve their abilities to retain and recall information, according to a literature review of studies about the pedagogy .

The literature review states “elaboration of knowledge at the time of learning” -- by sharing facts and ideas through discussion and answering questions -- “enhances subsequent retrieval.” This form of elaborating reinforces understanding of subject matter , making it easier to remember.

Small-group discussion can be especially beneficial -- ideally, each student will get chances to participate.

But regardless of group size, problem-based learning promotes long-term knowledge retention by encouraging students to discuss -- and answer questions about -- new concepts as they’re learning them.

2. Use of Diverse Instruction Types

You can use problem-based learning activities to the meet the diverse learning needs and styles of your students, effectively engaging a diverse classroom in the process. In general, grouping students together for problem-based learning will allow them to:

Address real-life issues that require real-life solutions, appealing to students who struggle to grasp abstract concepts
Participate in small-group and large-group learning, helping students who don’t excel during solo work grasp new material
Talk about their ideas and challenge each other in a constructive manner, giving participatory learners an avenue to excel
Tackle a problem using a range of content you provide -- such as videos, audio recordings, news articles and other applicable material -- allowing the lesson to appeal to distinct learning styles

Since running a problem-based learning scenario will give you a way to use these differentiated instruction approaches , it can be especially worthwhile if your students don’t have similar learning preferences.

3. Continuous Engagement

Providing a problem-based learning challenge can engage students by acting as a break from normal lessons and common exercises.

It’s not hard to see the potential for engagement, as kids collaborate to solve real-world problems that directly affect or heavily interest them.

Although conducted with post-secondary students, a study published by the Association for the Study of Medical Education reported increased student attendance to -- and better attitudes towards -- courses that feature problem-based learning.

These activities may lose some inherent engagement if you repeat them too often, but can certainly inject excitement into class.

4. Development of Transferable Skills

Problem-based learning can help students develop skills they can transfer to real-world scenarios, according to a 2015 book that outlines theories and characteristics of the pedagogy .

The tangible contexts and consequences presented in a problem-based learning activity “allow learning to become more profound and durable.” As you present lessons through these real-life scenarios, students should be able to apply learnings if they eventually face similar issues.

For example, if they work together to address a dispute within the school, they may develop lifelong skills related to negotiation and communicating their thoughts with others.

As long as the problem’s context applies to out-of-class scenarios, students should be able to build skills they can use again.

5. Improvement of Teamwork and Interpersonal Skills

Successful completion of a problem-based learning challenge hinges on interaction and communication, meaning students should also build transferable skills based on teamwork and collaboration . Instead of memorizing facts, they get chances to present their ideas to a group, defending and revising them when needed.

What’s more, this should help them understand a group dynamic. Depending on a given student, this can involve developing listening skills and a sense of responsibility when completing one’s tasks. Such skills and knowledge should serve your students well when they enter higher education levels and, eventually, the working world.

1. Potentially Poorer Performance on Tests

Devoting too much time to problem-based learning can cause issues when students take standardized tests, as they may not have the breadth of knowledge needed to achieve high scores. Whereas problem-based learners develop skills related to collaboration and justifying their reasoning, many tests reward fact-based learning with multiple choice and short answer questions. Despite offering many advantages, you could spot this problem develop if you run problem-based learning activities too regularly.

2. Student Unpreparedness

Problem-based learning exercises can engage many of your kids, but others may feel disengaged as a result of not being ready to handle this type of exercise for a number of reasons. On a class-by-class and activity-by-activity basis, participation may be hindered due to:

Immaturity -- Some students may not display enough maturity to effectively work in a group, not fulfilling expectations and distracting other students.
Unfamiliarity -- Some kids may struggle to grasp the concept of an open problem, since they can’t rely on you for answers.
Lack of Prerequisite Knowledge -- Although the activity should address a relevant and tangible problem, students may require new or abstract information to create an effective solution.

You can partially mitigate these issues by actively monitoring the classroom and distributing helpful resources, such as guiding questions and articles to read. This should keep students focused and help them overcome knowledge gaps. But if you foresee facing these challenges too frequently, you may decide to avoid or seldom introduce problem-based learning exercises.

3. Teacher Unpreparedness

If supervising a problem-based learning activity is a new experience, you may have to prepare to adjust some teaching habits . For example, overtly correcting students who make flawed assumptions or statements can prevent them from thinking through difficult concepts and questions. Similarly, you shouldn’t teach to promote the fast recall of facts. Instead, you should concentrate on:

Giving hints to help fix improper reasoning
Questioning student logic and ideas in a constructive manner
Distributing content for research and to reinforce new concepts
Asking targeted questions to a group or the class, focusing their attention on a specific aspect of the problem

Depending on your teaching style, it may take time to prepare yourself to successfully run a problem-based learning lesson.

4. Time-Consuming Assessment

If you choose to give marks, assessing a student’s performance throughout a problem-based learning exercise demands constant monitoring and note-taking. You must take factors into account such as:

Completed tasks
The quality of those tasks
The group’s overall work and solution
Communication among team members
Anything you outlined on the activity’s rubric

Monitoring these criteria is required for each student, making it time-consuming to give and justify a mark for everyone.

5. Varying Degrees of Relevancy and Applicability

It can be difficult to identify a tangible problem that students can solve with content they’re studying and skills they’re mastering. This introduces two clear issues. First, if it is easy for students to divert from the challenge’s objectives, they may miss pertinent information. Second, you could veer off the problem’s focus and purpose as students run into unanticipated obstacles. Overcoming obstacles has benefits, but may compromise the planning you did. It can also make it hard to get back on track once the activity is complete. Because of the difficulty associated with keeping activities relevant and applicable, you may see problem-based learning as too taxing.

If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages -- or you just want to give problem-based learning a shot -- follow these steps:

1. Identify an Applicable Real-Life Problem

Find a tangible problem that’s relevant to your students, allowing them to easily contextualize it and hopefully apply it to future challenges. To identify an appropriate real-world problem, look at issues related to your:

Students’ shared interests

You must also ensure that students understand the problem and the information around it. So, not all problems are appropriate for all grade levels.

2. Determine the Overarching Purpose of the Activity

Depending on the problem you choose, determine what you want to accomplish by running the challenge. For example, you may intend to help your students improve skills related to:

Collaboration
Problem-solving
Curriculum-aligned topics
Processing diverse content

A more precise example, you may prioritize collaboration skills by assigning specific tasks to pairs of students within each team. In doing so, students will continuously develop communication and collaboration abilities by working as a couple and part of a small group. By defining a clear purpose, you’ll also have an easier time following the next step.

3. Create and Distribute Helpful Material

Handouts and other content not only act as a set of resources, but help students stay focused on the activity and its purpose. For example, if you want them to improve a certain math skill , you should make material that highlights the mathematical aspects of the problem. You may decide to provide items such as:

Data that helps quantify and add context to the problem
Videos, presentations and other audio-visual material
A list of preliminary questions to investigate

Providing a range of resources can be especially important for elementary students and struggling students in higher grades, who may not have self-direction skills to work without them.

4. Set Goals and Expectations for Your Students

Along with the aforementioned materials, give students a guide or rubric that details goals and expectations. It will allow you to further highlight the purpose of the problem-based learning exercise, as you can explain what you’re looking for in terms of collaboration, the final product and anything else. It should also help students stay on track by acting as a reference throughout the activity.

5. Participate

Although explicitly correcting students may be discouraged, you can still help them and ask questions to dig into their thought processes. When you see an opportunity, consider if it’s worthwhile to:

Fill gaps in knowledge
Provide hints, not answers
Question a student’s conclusion or logic regarding a certain point, helping them think through tough spots

By participating in these ways, you can provide insight when students need it most, encouraging them to effectively analyze the problem.

6. Have Students Present Ideas and Findings

If you divided them into small groups, requiring students to present their thoughts and results in front the class adds a large-group learning component to the lesson. Encourage other students to ask questions, allowing the presenting group to elaborate and provide evidence for their thoughts. This wraps up the activity and gives your class a final chance to find solutions to the problem.

Wrapping Up

The effectiveness of problem-based learning may differ between classrooms and individual students, depending on how significant specific advantages and disadvantages are to you. Evaluative research consistently shows value in giving students a question and letting them take control of their learning. But the extent of this value can depend on the difficulties you face.It may be wise to try a problem-based learning activity, and go forward based on results.

Create or log into your teacher account on Prodigy -- an adaptive math game that adjusts content to accommodate player trouble spots and learning speeds. Aligned to US and Canadian curricula, it’s used by more than 350,000 teachers and 10 million students. It may be wise to try a problem-based learning activity, and go forward based on results.

Share this article

Table of Contents

Easily differentiate learning and engage your students with Prodigy Math.

17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

There are many ways to make a decision in a group environment, whether you find yourself in a personal or professional situation. One of the most popular methods to use is the group decision-making method. Instead of forcing one person into a leadership role where they decide for everyone, this process gives a topic to an entire group where a fusion of each opinion and set of experiences allows for a collective decision to occur.

When group decision making is the processed used to create forward momentum, then the final outcome cannot be changed by a single member of the group. Everyone must come together, no matter how much or little they agree with the eventual decision, to implement or overturn the choices being made in each scenario.

Group decisions must consist of at least two people, but it is a process that does not have an upper limit. It is a way to assign accountability to multiple parties in a group, manage conflict escalation, and identify alternatives that may not be possible with individualized choices.

There are several advantages and disadvantages of group decision making to consider before finalizing any choice.

List of the Advantages of Group Decision Making

1. You will receive more diversity in the availability of opinions. This advantage speaks to the diversity that is in your group. Whenever you bring in people from different educational backgrounds, family environments, and personal experiences, then you will receive a wide array of perspectives that can help you to reach a better overall decision in almost any situation. People who come from unique situations will always have different ideas than a group of individuals who all have a similar life story to share.

When you can engage the help of a number of people who can all come up with different ideas, then there are several new alternatives that can become available that wouldn’t be present otherwise.

2. It promotes greater interest and participation from the rest of the team. You need to have dedicated and interested people on your team when decisions need to be made because that is the only way that you can get some buy-in for the process. This advantage is necessary in the personal and professional choices that may be necessary. When people are asked to engage in a process that could impact their needs, then they are typically willing to look for innovative ideas, efficient plans, and active participation to create a successful outcome that works for everyone.

Even if you do not have a group of experts on your team that can address the specific needs of an upcoming project, their feedback to your ideas can help you to see things in a different way if you’re willing to keep an open mind.

3. You’ll create more understanding and positivity within the team. People are resistant to change when they don’t understand why a shift in perspective is necessary. There are times when the wheel doesn’t need to be reinvented, after all. It is also essential to realize that without communication and discussion, any decisions that do get made will encounter resistance when there is no explanation as to why a new series of events is suddenly necessary.

By engaging the entire group in a discussion about what needs to happen, you will create more acceptance of the final outcome. You may receive some interesting or exciting suggestions or opinions that could move you in an unexpectedly better direction because there is a fresh perspective available.

4. It creates an opportunity to create collective contributions. The average decision made by a single individual can be partial or biased in its outcome. These choices usually work in the favor of the person who is in charge of implementing the solutions that are necessary. By moving the final choice to a group scenario, there is less power in the leadership’s influence over everyone else. It is a process that removes the barriers of discussion monopolies that can force people into a specific outcome which might not be the best solution in those circumstances.

By reducing the risks of bias and partiality, it becomes possible to reach an outcome that can favor a majority of the people in the ground.

5. You can take advantage of team building opportunities. Active participation in the decision-making process creates a unique team-building opportunity for the entire group. You are inspiring healthy debate and passionate discussions about important topics when you embrace this concept personally or professionally. Some of those conversations might be difficult, but any action that works to proactively coordinate the efforts of team members can result in an efficient outcome.

This process also creates a secondary advantage where the skills of each team member can slowly transfer over to others in the group, creating individual benefits as the organization continues to improve at the same time.

6. It promotes the idea that collective thinking is an advantage. Group decision making is beneficial because it offers a diverse set of views that work toward a creative, positive outcome for each person involved with the process. It sets the stage for compromise because it can reduce the impact of extreme views while the group can also strive toward a meaningful result that might be outside of the usual framework of what they do. The entire process becomes advantageous to the teams willing to go through this investment because the eventual outcome is to create something that is mutually beneficial to everyone.

7. Group decision making can increase the strength of an organization. Change happens whenever a decision is made, whether it is by a single leader or an entire group. When people can come together to discuss the issues that they will face when change occurs, then the resiliency of the organization and the team will increase. The chances that a cost-effective answer that works within an acceptable structure will be discovered increase when this advantage is present.

By increasing the strength of the entire team, the organization benefits too because the executive leadership is only as good as the people who are working at an entry-level position. This advantage eventually leads to a higher job satisfaction rating up and down the chain-of-command because there are more opportunities to learn from one another.

8. It is a process that allows a team to take advantage of a smart risk-taking opportunity. Many people are unwilling to take a risk because of the potential exposure they have to the final outcome. When you place these individuals into a group setting, then the risk levels spread out to each team member instead of residing with a single person. That makes it more likely for the entire group to take a chance on an innovative solution instead of remaining with the status quo.

Organizations benefit from this process because innovation typically leads to better revenues. By encouraging smart risks where the payoff benefits are greater than a potential loss, it is easier for the entire team to find new ways to grow.

List of the Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

1. The group decision-making process can take a significant amount of time to complete. When you have a lot of time available before a decision must be made, then engaging with the entire group can create many advantages. If you need to reach a conclusion rapidly, then an individual choice instead of a group one is a better solution to pursue. That’s because it takes more time for team members to reach a consensus when compared to a supervisor who can make a unilateral decision for everyone.

Every member of the group adds a time need to the decision-making process. That means a two-member group will reach a choice faster than a 200-member group, but both will be slower than the team who relies on their leader to make the choice for everyone.

2. You can receive irrelevant opinions and ideas with the group decision-making process. Everyone will bring their unique ideas to the table when you encourage a group discussion. This process can provide a number of benefits, but it can also turn into a choice where each person works harder at protecting their best interests instead of promoting the general welfare of the team. It is a disadvantage that can highlight the disparities found in the group, which can eventually lead to a reduction in efficiencies or quality in the final choice.

People can also bring ideas to the table that they think are based on expertise, but are really evidence of a lack of knowledge. You can have people fighting for irrelevant opinions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand because everyone thinks that their stance is the correct one.

3. Some people refuse to share their perspectives during group decision making. There are times when people decide to remain silent during a group discussion because they have nothing that they want to add to the conversation. They have decided before this process that they’re going to “roll with the punches” and follow whatever outcome occurs. This disadvantage can create a room full of silence where the leader is still expected to come up with the final decision.

Some team members might decide to stay silent because of social pressures as well. It can be a negative component of this process that can lead teams toward the wrong decision because there are too many loud voices that drown out the softer, quieter tidbits of expertise that get shared.

4. Groups can have a different priority than what the decision requires. The group decision-making process creates a number of ideas that come up for discussion. It is not unusual for everyone to focus on a specific number of them, sometimes just 1-2 alternatives, instead of trying to look at the bigger overall picture. Their focus can be based on what their best interests are in that situation, the popularity of the people proposing the idea, or other factors that may not be consequential to the final result.

This disadvantage can lead to a limitation of choices instead of an expansion of them. Groups can find themselves stuck to only a few ideas because of their stubbornness. It is a process which results in less efficiency instead of more when it occurs.

5. The final choice can go against the outcomes of an organization. Most group discussions will eventually get to a point where the decisions carry out the mission, vision, and objectives of the organization. Then there are the times when the choices made and carried out by the group does not always accomplish the goals that are necessary in the situation. If there is not agreement in the group with the desired wish of the organization, either personally or professionally, then it can lead to disruptive behavior in the future. This process results in fewer goals reached, movement away from the mission, and objectives that have no bearing on what the final outcome must be.

6. Groups reduce the amount of accountability that occurs in the workplace. When one person makes a decision for everyone, then the positive or negative accountability that occurs because of that process can ensure the appropriate outcomes can happen. If a group makes a decision that fails, then there is uncertainty on who to blame. Is the whole group responsible for the outcome? What about the people who objected to the final decision, yet they still get lumped in with everyone else despite their opposition?

When groups decide to take more risks when employing this process, then there is a possibility that a greater, more valuable reward becomes possible. It also means people will be quick to assign blame instead of taking responsibility for an outcome that fails to live up to its full potential. Leaders in this situation are the most likely to use this disadvantage to shift the blame to someone else.

7. It can result in an overuse of authority. Group discussions are designed to create more unity and harmony within the workplace environment. The idea is that by getting people onto the same page at the earliest possible stage, it becomes easier to reach the objections, goals, and vision of the organization. This process is similar to what occurs in the family environment as well.

There are times when an opinion can be influenced by someone in authority over them, which allows a leader to dominate the discussion. This disadvantage can cause some members of the group to become less involved with team activities, which increases the risk of more silos.

8. Group decision making can cause everyone to see themselves as a leader. Organizations require people to be in leadership positions because there needs to be individuals in charge of team development, project implementation, and mentorship. When the group decision-making process is a top priority, then there can be times when multiple members of a team can start thinking that they are in a leadership role with their company. Most workers will use the little bit of power they’re given in this process to benefit themselves and their organization, but it can also cause a few people to think that they are in charge.

When you have team members outside of the supervisor or manager handing out assignments, enforcing company policy, and even trying to manage disciplinary actions, then this disadvantage can reduce the amount of creativity that is available in the workplace.

9. People in a group can decide to “go with the flow.” One of the most significant problems with the group decision-making process is that team members can decide that their top priority is to avoid conflict instead of fighting for their ideas. This disadvantage can quickly lead to a problem that is call “group think.” You can spot it happening when the loudest voice in the room is the one getting all of the ideas to pass. Discussions don’t need bullies to create a successful outcome. An organization needs people to be brave enough to support their concepts while providing evidence that it could be a meaningful solution.

Because of the dynamics of this disadvantage, it is not unusual for teams to begin polarizing around 1-3 central figures. People who disagree with the outcome get lumped into “outsider” categories by all parties. It becomes an us vs. them conversation over time instead of a discussion of ideas.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

Group decision making can be an effective way to encourage team members to share their experiences, education, and perspectives in a safe environment to further the goals of a personal or professional team. You can take advantage of multiple opinions to find a better choice.

This process can also be easy to manipulate, especially if one of the participants is a leader who can control the professional outcomes of the discussion participants. Teams must take risks to find results, and it is important to note that some leaders may not appreciate that concept.

The advantages and disadvantages of group decision making can help leaders to structure conversations that lead toward improved outcomes. It can also create a deafening silence where no one on the team cares about what happens because there is no credit or accountability for the results.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Why Groups Struggle to Solve Problems Together

Al Pittampalli

If your meetings are unproductive, this might be the reason.

There are five stages of problem solving: defining the problem, generating solutions, evaluating solutions, picking a solution, and making a plan. When we solve problems on our own, we intuitively move in between these stages to quickly generate solutions. We assume this method will also work in group settings, however, it often fails because each person could be occupying a different problem solving stage at the same time (essentially, no one is on the same page — even though they think they are). To solve problems as a group, we need to jettison the assumption that intuitive problem solving is sufficient, and instead embrace a more methodical approach. In a methodical meeting, for each issue that needs to be discussed, members deliberately and explicitly choose just one problem-solving stage to complete.

Why are so many meetings so unproductive?

Al Pittampalli is the founder of the Modern Meeting Company and the author of Read This Before Our Next Meeting (Penguin).

Partner Center

IMAGES

PPT
PPT
PPT
Advantages and Disadvantages of Problem Solving and Group Decision Making
PPT
Advantages and Disadvantages of Problem Solving and Group Decision

VIDEO

High Performance Leadership (Effective Group Problem solving
Mastering Critical Thinking: The Ultimate Guide to Making Informed Decisions #audiobook #audiobooks
Emerging Technology 3: Artificial intelligence.
Why Collective Phrases Are So Important
CTL Teaching Methods
advantages & disadvantages of prefabricated technicians & principle with telugu explanation

COMMENTS

Team Problem Solving: Advantages and Disadvantages
As compared to the advantages of team problem solving, the disadvantages can deliberately present the difference of opinion within the working behaviour of the team members. 1. Increased competition: Most of the time while working in a team a person's individual efforts can be ignored because of the team.
Advantages Vs Disadvantages
Here are lists of disadvantages and advantages of group problem solving: Disadvantages: Competition: Most people working in a group unconsciously perceive the situation to be competitive; trying to perform better than other members. Although this is good as it creates a competitive environment, it can also generates behaviour which is ...
14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups
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.
What Is Group Problem-Solving? (With Benefits and Tips)
To solve problems in a group, consider following these six steps: 1. Identify the problem. First, explore the different facets of the problem your group is trying to solve. Many group problem-solving sessions begin with an interactive activity, where each group member describes the problem and its effects on their work.
7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making
Bring a diverse group together. Appoint a devil's advocate. Collect opinions independently. Provide a safe space to speak up. Don't over-rely on experts. And share collective responsibility ...
7 Advantages of Team Problem-Solving
1. better communication. All teams crave better communication, and solving problems with the whole team is a shortcut to achieving this goal. When working out a problem together, team members gain a better understanding of the issues involved. Every team member brings a slightly different context to each problem.
17 Major Pros and Cons of Group Decision Making
List of the Pros of Group Decision Making. 1. It promotes the sharing of information between group members. The most significant advantage of the group decision making process is that it removes silos on your team. People are encouraged to share information with one another because every opinion is valid with this structure.
5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Problem-Based Learning [+ Activity
Used since the 1960s, many teachers express concerns about the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) in certain classroom settings. Whether you introduce the student-centred pedagogy as a one-time activity or mainstay exercise, grouping students together to solve open-ended problems can present pros and cons.. Below are five advantages and disadvantages of problem-based learning to ...
17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Decision Making
9. People in a group can decide to "go with the flow.". One of the most significant problems with the group decision-making process is that team members can decide that their top priority is to avoid conflict instead of fighting for their ideas. This disadvantage can quickly lead to a problem that is call "group think.".
Why Groups Struggle to Solve Problems Together
Why Groups Struggle to Solve Problems Together. Summary. There are five stages of problem solving: defining the problem, generating solutions, evaluating solutions, picking a solution, and making ...