when a problem solving team includes a closed minded

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

The Two Traits of the Best Problem-Solving Teams

• Alison Reynolds
• David Lewis

You need both diversity and safety.

An analysis of 150 senior teams showed that the ones who solve problems the fastest tend to be cognitively diverse. But this isn’t always true — sometimes, those teams still struggle. So what separates the best teams from the rest? It turns out that it’s a combination of cognitive diversity and psychological safety. Teams high in both traits show curious and encouraging behavior, and also the level of forcefulness and experimentation needed to keep their momentum. Teams low in either trait were either too combative (if they were high in cognitive diversity and low in psychological safety) or too prone to group-think (if the reverse was true).

Imagine you are a fly on the wall in a corporate training center where a management team of 12 is participating in a session on executing strategy. The team is midway through attempting to solve a new, uncertain, and complex problem. The facilitators look on as at first the exercise follows its usual path. But then activity grinds to a halt — people have no idea what to do. Suddenly, a more junior member of the team raises her hand and exclaims, “I think I know what we should do!” Relieved, the team follows her instructions enthusiastically. There is no doubt she has the answer — but as she directs her colleagues, she makes one mistake and the activity breaks down. Not a word is spoken but the entire group exude disappointment. Her confidence evaporates. Even though she has clearly learnt something important, she does not contribute again. The group gives up.

• AR Alison Reynolds  is a member of faculty at the UK’s Ashridge Business School where she works with executive groups in the field of leadership development, strategy execution and organization development. She has previously worked in the public sector and management consulting, and is an advisor to a number of small businesses and charities.
• DL David Lewis  is Director of London Business School’s Senior Executive Programme and teaches on strategy execution and leading in uncertainty. He is a consultant and works with global corporations, advising and coaching board teams.  He is co-founder of a research company focusing on developing tools to enhance individual, team and organization performance through better interaction.

Partner Center

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

The most recent updated version of this chapter is at: https://opentext.ku.edu/teams/chapter/teams-as-systems/

Content in this chapter comes from the open university at open.edu.  source 1 and  source 2, creating successful teams: a holistic view.

This section focusses on an open systems’ approach to teamwork – a helpful approach which encourages teams to consider the context in which they works. The approach considers team processes, which are divided into three parts: inputs , throughputs and outputs . These highlight the different issues and activities a team and leaders needs to engage with or oversee during the life of a team. As you read, think about the processes the team went through (or will go through).

Inputs, throughputs and outputs

The systems perspective ask us to think of teams as part of the wider context of an organization or the community. Considering a systems perspective ensures that team-leaders can find the resources to help the team function successfully. A systems perspective asks: what needs to be controlled, monitored and/ or influenced within and outside the team? At the same time,  leaders needs to consider the team in terms of its task phases and processes, from start to finish. This allows leaders put a particular team-related issue in context in order to understand it better.

A leader’s task is to understand, plan and monitor all these different processes. This seemingly complex and unwieldy task is easier to understand and manage when broken down into its component parts. The open systems model of team work (Schermerhorn et al ., 1995; Ingram et al ., 1997) can help to explain and characterize effective team-work processes.

The open systems approach to team working

Schermerhorn and colleagues suggest that teamwork can be considered as a three-stage sequence. Teams are viewed as systems which take in resources such as time, people, skills, problems (inputs) and through transformational processes (throughputs) such as decision-making and different behaviors and activities, transform them into outputs, such as work, solutions and satisfactions (Ingram et al ., 1997). Thus, team performance is the collective competencies, knowledge, and actions of team members (DiSanza & Legge, 2017).  This is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Inputs are factors which are controlled and influenced by management. They include ‘ climate’ , the atmosphere under which the team works, and ‘ group configuration ’, how the team is put together, who is selected to work in it and why. Management will also influence how a team should work by making sure at the outset that the team strategy is in line with the vision and strategic direction of the organization and that it uses the organization’s preferred work practices; for example, face-to-face or virtual working.

Throughputs refer to the activities and tasks that help to transform inputs into outputs. They may have the greatest influence on effective team work as they include team processes such as developing and maintaining cohesiveness, and communication. They also involve task activities which get the work done and maintenance activities which support the development and smooth functioning of the team.

Outputs are those (successful) outcomes which satisfy organizational or personal goals or other predetermined criteria. The success of outputs may be assessed by a number of stakeholders, including the organization itself and team members, and by a range of other stakeholders. Team outputs include the performance of team tasks and individual outputs (such as professional development).

How can this framework be applied in a way which highlights how to manage or lead a team and its task? Imagine you have been asked to put together a team to produce the company’s internal newsletter. What inputs, throughputs and outputs would you need? What questions would you need to ask yourself about different aspects of the process? We now consider what you might need to think about for the newsletter example. Some of the questions could be adapted and applied to other situations as well.

Inputs are often controlled or influenced by management. This may be the direct manager of the group or team or the result of senior management decisions and strategies. This means in practice that the way a team is put together and will function is influenced by the organization’s values, vision and strategy, and its practices and procedures.

Two main factors to consider at this stage are communication climate and group configuration.  Communication climate refers to the communicative norms for a workplace, usually this focuses on how willing or unwilling people are to raise issues or concerns and to speak freely. Group configuration refers to the roles adopted by group members. Some groups have strong hierarchy (the leader makes all decisions) other groups distribute decisions among all members (i.e., democratic or egalitarian). The communication climate and configuration of members determines how inputs can be leveraged.

Some input-related questions for you to consider at this stage are given in Table 1:

Table 1 Input-related questions

How much support is there for this newsletter among senior management?

Who might need to be influenced?

What objectives will it fulfill?

What resources will be provided for it? What others might be needed? Where could they come from?

How will individuals working on this be rewarded or recognized?

What might they learn? What skills could they hope to develop?

How many people will be needed to perform this task?

What technical skills are needed (e.g. desktop publishing)?

What training and development opportunities are available?

What roles are needed (e.g. a co-coordinator)?

Who might work well together?

Throughputs

Some common throughputs include:

Team processes . A sense of unity is created through sharing clear goals which are understood and accepted by the members.

Cohesiveness . This involves encouraging feelings of belonging, cooperation, openness and commitment to the team.

Communication . This involves being clear, accurate, open and honest.

Decision-making . This involves making sure that established procedures are in place, that everybody is clear about leadership and an environment of trust is being created.

Task and maintenance activities . These include activities that ensure that the task is produced effectively, such as planning, agreeing on procedures and controls. They also include activities that minimise threats to the process, such as monitoring and reviewing internal processes and dealing constructively with conflict.

In Table 2, you’ll find out more on “Throughputs”:

Table 2: Throughputs

Task and maintenance activities . These include activities that ensure that the task is produced effectively, such as planning, agreeing on procedures and controls. They also include activities that minimize threats to the process, such as monitoring and reviewing internal processes and dealing constructively with conflict.

In the case of the newsletter project, you may need to think about ways of setting up the project. Would it be possible to have a team away day? If so, what would the themes of the day be? Perhaps you could work backwards from the finished product. How do team members envisage the newsletter in terms of aim, goals, content and look? Can they come up with an appropriate design and name for the newsletter? Then, what needs to be done in order for this to be produced? Some ground rules for working together may also need to be set at an early stage. Some throughput-related questions are set out in Table 3.

Table 3: Throughput-related questions

What can you do to build a sense of belonging among the team members?

How will the group communicate? (Face-to-face, email, group software?)

Do any ground rules need setting up? How can this be done?

What established procedures for decision-making are there?

Will there be a team leader? How will the person be chosen?

What tasks need to be performed to complete the project?

What maintenance behaviors does the group need to exhibit to get the job done and to benefit and develop from the experience?

Who will be responsible for ensuring that the different tasks and maintenance activities are performed?

Are there structures and systems in place to review processes?

Outcomes can be examined in terms of task performance, individual performance and other (incidental) outcomes.

Task performance . This may be judged on a number of criteria, such as quality of the formal outputs or objectives. In this case a product (the newsletter) and the time taken to perform the task are the criteria.

Individual outputs . These may include personal satisfaction and personal development and learning.

Other outcomes . These include transferable skills to apply in future to other teamwork. They include, for example, experience of effective teamwork and task-specific skills.

In general, it is always appropriate to evaluate outcomes. In this case you may need to think about:

• Evaluating the newsletter itself . Was it well-received?
• Evaluating individual outcomes . Have members developed transferable skills that they can take to new projects?
• Evaluating other outcomes . Has the experience enhanced team members’ ability to work in a team?

Some output-related questions are set out in Table 4.

Table 4 Output-related questions

Has the team completed the task it was given?

Has it kept to cost and to time?

What has the team learned from this experience?

Should the team now be broken up or could it go on to another activity?

What have individuals learned from the experience?

Have members experienced an effective team?

Have any learning and development needs been identified? How can they be addressed?

Have members developed transferable teamworking and other skills?

Where can these skills be used in the organization?

The open systems model of teamwork shows us how effective teamwork can offer benefits to organization and staff. However, it also shows us that these benefits do not occur without effort and planning. Leaders need to ensure that the right team is put together to perform a given task and that it is given appropriate tasks. They also need to secure the freedom, resources and support for the team to undertake the task. The model alerts teams and leaders to both the micro and the macro issues they will need to be aware of in managing effective teams .

Another significant feature of a work group is its size. To be effective it should be neither too large nor too small. As membership increases there is a trade-off between increased collective expertise and decreased involvement and satisfaction of individual members. A very small group may not have the range of skills it requires to function well. The optimum size depends partly on the group’s purpose. A group for information sharing or decision making may need to be larger than one for problem solving.

A simple calculation can indicate how quickly the number of two-way interactions in a group increases with increasing size. In a group of N people (where N stands for a number) each of the N individuals relates with N × 1 others, so there are N × (N − 1) / 2 possible interactions.

In many organizations, there is a tendency to include representatives from every conceivable grouping on all committees in the belief that this enhances participation and effectiveness. There is also the view that putting a representative of every possible related department into a given group helps smooth information flow and project progress. In practice, communication is usually reduced in larger groups. As the group size grows, members feel less involved in the process, alienation tends to increase and commitment to the project tends to decrease. The numbers most commonly quoted for effective group size in a face-to-face team are between 5 and 10, so reducing the number of interactions and lessening the risk of conflict.

There is a nice demonstration that the ‘between 5 and 10’ rule is due to communication limitations. If we devise special procedures to manage the interpersonal exchanges (as in some computer-based brainstorming systems, where the computers handle all the gathering and feeding back of ideas) the advantages of the small group disappears: the larger the group, the more ideas are generated.

However, in the normal face-to-face mode, if there are more than about 12 members in our team we are likely to encounter group-size problems. If the numbers cannot be reduced we might consider restructuring the team into sub-groups and delegating responsibility for achieving some of the team’s objectives. We may find that if we don’t do this deliberately it will happen anyway. For instance, members who like each other or share common interests may spontaneously form sub-groups.

Unfortunately, the breakdown of large groups into sub-groups and cliques may not help a team achieve its goals. One device for keeping large numbers of people informed about a project is for a small group to manage the task and for it to invite relevant people to attend particular meetings. Alternatively, the small group can arrange to give information seminars to larger groups of colleagues. So, for the purposes of achieving team goals it is better that the process of restructuring big groups into smaller groups is managed consciously and carefully.

Managing group membership

The range of people that makes up the membership of a team, and the relationships they have with each other, have great influence on the team’s effectiveness. The members should all be able to contribute their skills and expertise to the team’s goals to make the best use of the resources. If you are ever in the position of being able to select your own team, you will need to identify your objectives and the methods for achieving your goals. From this will come the competences – the knowledge, understanding, skills and personal qualities – which you need in your team members.

The  least-sized group principle contends that the ideal group size is one which incorporates a wide variety of views and opinions but contains as few members as possible. Restated, a group should be as small as possible while still incorporating as wide a range of perspectives as possible. It is important to appraise as systematically as possible the relationship between team functions and required competences in order to identify gaps and begin to allocate responsibilities, organize training and so on. Figure 2 provides a useful way of weighing up the mixture of ‘task’ and ‘people’ functions (or ‘faces’) of a team.

Faces 1 and 2 are external to the team and concern:

• adapting to the environment and using organizational resources effectively in order to satisfy the requirements of the team’s sponsor.
• relating effectively with people outside the team in order to meet the needs of clients or customers, whether internal or external to the organization.

Faces 3 and 4 are internal to the team and concern:

• using systems and procedures appropriately to carry out goal-oriented tasks.
• working in a way which makes people feel part of a team.

Each face implies different competences.

We may find that when we are setting up a team we have to guess a little about the competences that are required. We may also find that as the team develops and gets on with its work, there are changes in everyone’s perception of the skills and knowledge needed. It is therefore important to keep an eye on changes that affect the expertise needed by the team and actively recruit new members if necessary. It is frequently the case that team members have other work commitments outside the team. The implications of this should be taken into account when recruiting team members and allocating tasks and responsibilities to them. Team loyalties and commitments need to be balanced with other loyalties and commitments. Often we will have limited or no choice about who is recruited to the team. We may find that we just have to make do with the situation and struggle to be effective despite limitations in the competence base.

As well as competencies there are other factors that can influence the working of a team. The balance of men and women and people from different nationalities or cultural backgrounds all play a part. Differences in personality can also have a significant effect. Achieving the best mix in a team invariably involves working on the tensions that surround issues of uniformity and diversity. The pushes and pulls in different directions need to be managed. The dismantling of many of the restrictions in the European labour market supports moves towards recruitment practices which seek team members with proven capabilities to work in other countries. Legislation and social changes make it easier for organizations to develop and train their staff to appreciate ethnic and national differences in values, style, attitudes and performance standards. Nevertheless, there are countervailing tendencies, internally and externally.

Developing openness and trust, for example, can often seem easier in the first instance on the basis of a high degree of homogeneity; strengthening diversity can seem threatening in an established team.

Functional and team roles

When individuals are being selected for membership of a team, the choice is usually made on the basis of task-related issues, such as their prior skills, knowledge, and experience. However, team effectiveness is equally dependent on the personal qualities and attributes of individual team members. It is just as important to select for these as well.

When we work with other people in a group or team we each bring two types of role to that relationship. The first, and more obvious, is our functional role , which relies on the skills and experiences that we bring to the project or problem in hand. The second, and often overlooked, contribution is our team role , which tends to be based on our personality or preferred style of action. To a large extent, our team role can be said to determine how we apply the skills and experiences that comprise our functional role.

Belbin (1981, 1993) researched the functional role/team role distinction and its implications for teams. He found that, while there are a few people who do not function well in any team role, most of us have perhaps two or three roles that we feel comfortable in (our so-called ‘preferred roles’) and others in which we feel less at ease (our so-called ‘non-preferred roles’). In fact, Belbin and his associates identified nine such team roles. Some of the non-preferred roles are ones we can cope with if we have to. However, there are also likely to be others in which we are both uncomfortable and ineffective.

Belbin’s nine team roles are listed in Table 1. It is worth noting that all nine are equally important to team effectiveness, provided that they are used by the team at the right times and in an appropriate manner.

When a team first addresses a problem or kicks off a project, the basic requirement is usually for innovative ideas (the need for a ‘plant’), closely followed by the requirement to appreciate how these ideas can be turned into practical actions and manageable tasks (the ‘implementer’). These steps stand most chance of being achieved if the team has a good chairperson (the ‘coordinator’) who ensures that the appropriate team members contribute at the right times. Drive and impetus are brought to the team’s activities by the energetic ‘shaper’. When delicate negotiations with contacts outside the team are called for, it is the personality of the ‘resource investigator’ that comes into its own. To stop the team becoming over-enthusiastic and missing key points, the ‘monitor/evaluator’ must be allowed to play a part. Any sources of friction or misunderstanding within the team are diffused by the ‘teamworker’, whilst the ‘specialist’ is used for skills or knowledge that are in short supply and not used regularly. The ‘completer/finisher’ ensures that proper attention is paid to the details of any solutions or follow-up actions.

It is essential that team members share details of their team roles with their colleagues if the team is to gain the full benefit from its range of roles; the team can then see if any of the nine team roles are missing. If this is the case, those team members whose non-preferred roles match the missing roles need to make the effort required to fill the gap. If not it may be necessary to bring in additional team members. Clearly, this sharing calls for a degree of openness and trust, which should exist in a well-organised, well-led team. Unfortunately, in teams that have not yet developed mutual trust and openness, some people who may be quite open about the details of their functional roles tend to be somewhat coy about sharing personality details. A competent leader will handle this situation in a sensitive manner.

Belbin team roles

Leaders sometimes try to rationalize having teams that are unbalanced in a team-role sense by claiming that they have been assigned a group of people as their team and they must live with it. In most of today’s workplaces there is a steady and regular movement of staff in and out of management groups and departments. When selecting or accepting new people into their groups or departments, leaders with an understanding of team-role concepts will look for team-role strengths in addition to functional-role strengths.

Each team role brings valuable strengths to the overall team (team strength), but each also has a downside. Belbin has coined the phrase ‘an allowable weakness’ for what is the converse of a team strength. The tendency is for a leader to try to correct perceived weaknesses in an employee. But by doing this with allowable weaknesses we face the possibility of not only failing to eradicate what is after all a natural weakness, but also risking undermining the strength that goes with it. This is not to suggest that weaknesses should not be addressed. The point is that any attempts at improvement should be kept in balance and we should be prepared to manage and work around the weaknesses of our team colleagues and ourselves. Many people put on an act in an attempt to hide their weaknesses. Once they see that they can admit to them without prejudice, they feel a sense of relief and are ready to play their part in the team in a more open manner.

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

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.5: Problem Solving and Decision-Making in Groups

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 147034

• Lisa Coleman, Thomas King, & William Turner
• Southwest Tennessee Community College

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.
• Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
• 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 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 we can apply what we have 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 a 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 do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

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

“Getting Competent”: Problem Solving and Group Presentations

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

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn’t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group’s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings (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 include 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 assign parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

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 . Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\) “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made . A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision-making since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a supermajority 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 the 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 a unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, the consensus is reached only after a 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 a consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

“Getting Critical”: Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts (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—focus on potential risks, point 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—try to generate new ideas and solutions, think “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

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 it 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 in to 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.

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 the 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 task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affects 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, meaning the members are more similar, may sacrifice some creativity. n general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). These groups benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision-making and creativity of output.

The benefits and challenges that come with the 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” which then prevents us from having meaningful interactions.

Key Takeaways

• Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, the 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.
• 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.
• Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. Only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made with majority rule. With minority rule, designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.
• Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
• Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
• Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
• Scenario 1. Task difficulty is high, the number of possible solutions is high, group interest in the problem is high, group familiarity with the problem is low, and the need for solution acceptance is high.
• Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, the number of possible solutions is low, group interest in the problem is low, group familiarity with the problem is high, and the 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.

11 Groups and meetings

Meetings are a part of how groups get work done. Some view meetings as boring, pointless, and futile exercises, while others see them as opportunities to exchange information and produce results. A combination of preparation and execution makes all the difference. Remember, too, that meetings do not have to take place in a physical space where the participants meet face to face. Instead, a number of technological tools make it possible to hold virtual meetings in which the participants are half a world away from one another. Virtual meetings are formally arranged gatherings where participants, located in distinct geographic locations, come together via the Internet.

Preparation

A meeting, like a problem-solving group, needs a clear purpose statement. The specific goal for the specific meeting will clearly relate to the overall goal of the group or committee. Determining your purpose is central to an effective meeting and getting together just to get together is called a party, not a meeting. Do not schedule a meeting just because you met at the same time last month or because it is a standing committee. Members will resent the intrusion into their schedules and quickly perceive the lack of purpose.

Similarly, if the need for a meeting arises, do not rush into it without planning. A poorly planned meeting announced at the last minute is sure to be less than effective. People may be unable to change their schedules, may fail to attend, or may impede the progress and discussion of the group because of their absence. Those who attend may feel hindered because they needed more time to prepare and present comprehensive results to the group or committee.

DECIDING HOW TO MEET

If a meeting is necessary, and a clear purpose can be articulated, then you’ll need to decide how and where to meet. Distance is no longer an obstacle to participation, as we will see later in this section when we explore some of the technologies for virtual meetings. However, there are many advantages to meeting in person. People communicate not just with words but also with their body language—facial expressions, hand gestures, head nodding or head shaking, and posture. These subtleties of communication can be key to determining how group members really feel about an issue or question. Meeting in real time can be important, too, as all group members have the benefit of receiving new information at the same time. For purposes of our present discussion, we will focus on meetings taking place face to face in real time. Later in this chapter, we will discuss virtual meetings.

FORMULATING AN AGENDA

If you have a purpose statement for the meeting, then it also follows that you should be able to create an agenda , or a list of topics to be discussed. You may need to solicit information from members to formulate an agenda, and this pre-meeting contact can serve to encourage active participation. The agenda will have a time, date, place, and method of interaction noted, as well as a list of participants. It will also have a statement of purpose, a list of points to be considered, and a brief summary of relevant information that relates to each point. Somewhere on the agenda the start and end times need to be clearly indicated, and it is always a good idea to leave time at the end for questions and additional points that individual members may want to share. If the meeting has an emotional point or theme, will require significant deliberation or change, or the news is negative, plan for additional time for discussion, clarification, and recycling of conversations as the participants process the information.

INVITING MEETING PARTICIPANTS

If you are planning an intense work session, you need to consider the number of possible interactions among the participants and limit them. Smaller groups are generally more productive. If you are gathering to present information or to motivate the sales staff, a large audience, where little interaction is expected, is appropriate. Each member has a role, and attention to how and why they are interacting will produce the best results. Review the stages of group formation in view of the idea that a meeting is a short-term group. You can anticipate a “forming” stage, and if roles are not clear, there may be a bit of “storming” before the group establishes norms and becomes productive. Adding additional participants for no clear reason will only make the process more complex and may produce negative results.

Inviting the participants via e-mail has become increasingly common across business and industry. Software programs like Microsoft Outlook allow you to initiate a meeting request and receive an “accept” or “decline” response that makes the invitation process organized and straightforward. Further, increasingly services like Calendly can integrate meeting participant’s calendars, and can even email participants a link to a virtual meeting or schedule a room. Reliance on a software program, however, may not be enough to encourage and ensure participation. A reminder on the individual’s computer may go off fifteen minutes prior to the meeting, but if they are away from their computer or if Outlook is not running, the reminder will go unseen and unheard. A reminder e-mail on the day of the meeting, often early in the morning, can serve as a personal effort to highlight the activities of the day.

IDENTIFYING AN APPROPRIATE MEETING SPACE

Seating arrangements in meetings have been a recent topic of discussion. Generally, a table that is square, rectangular, or U-shaped has a fixed point at which the attention is directed, often referred to as the head of the table. This space is often associated with power, status, and hierarchy and may play an important role in the flow of interactions across the meeting. If information is to be distributed and presented from administration to managers, for example, a table with a clear focal point for the head or CEO may be indicated. Tables that are round, or tables arranged in a circular pattern, allow for a more egalitarian model of interaction, reducing the hierarchical aspects while reinforcing the clear line of sight among all participants. If a meeting requires intense interaction and collaboration, generally a round table or a circular pattern is indicated.

Some meetings do not call for a table, but rather rows of seats all facing toward the speaker; you probably recognize this arrangement from many class lectures you have attended. For relatively formal meetings in which information is being delivered to a large number of listeners and little interaction is desired, seating in rows is an efficient use of space.

If you are the person responsible for the room reservation, confirm the reservation a week before the meeting and again the day before the meeting. Redundancy in the confirmation process can help eliminate  double-booking  a room, where two meetings are scheduled at the same time. If technology is required at the meeting, such as a microphone, conference telephone, or laptop and projector, make sure you confirm their reservation at the same time as you confirm the meeting room reservation. Always personally inspect the room and test these systems prior to the meeting. There is nothing more embarrassing than introducing a high-profile speaker, such as the company president, and then finding that the PowerPoint software or projector is not working properly.

FACILITATING AN EFFECTIVE MEETING

Facilitating a meeting requires care, vigilance, flexibility, resilience, humility, and humor. In a way, to run a meeting effectively calls someone to act the way a skilled athletic coach does, watching the action, calling plays, and encouraging good performance. Furthermore, you need to monitor the interaction of everyone around you and “call the plays” based on a game plan that you and your fellow group members have presumably agreed upon in advance. Finally, like a coach, you sometimes need to call timeouts—breaks—when people are weary or the action is starting to get raggedy or undisciplined.

MEETING CHECKLIST FOR PARTICIPANTS

Mary Ellen Guffey (2017) provides a useful participant checklist that is adapted here for our use:

• Arrive on time and stay until the meeting adjourns (unless there are prior arrangements)
• Leave the meeting only for established breaks or emergencies
• Be prepared and have everything you need on hand
• Turn off cell phones and personal digital assistants
• Follow the established protocol for turn taking
• Respect time limits
• Demonstrate professionalism in your verbal and nonverbal interactions
• Communicate interest and stay engaged in the discussion
• Avoid tangents and side discussions
• Respect space and don’t place your notebook or papers all around you
• Clean up after yourself
• Engage in polite conversation after the conclusion

Perils of Poor Facilitation

Unfortunately, many people lack the skills to effectively facilitate a meeting. As a result, a variety of negative results can take place as they fail to act capably as meeting facilitators. Here are some signs to watch for:

• An argument starts about an established fact.
• Opinions are introduced as if they were truths.
• People intimidate others with real or imaginary “knowledge.”
• People overwhelm each other with too many proposals for the time available to consider them.
• People become angry for no good reason.
• People promote their own visions at the expense of everyone else’s.
• People demand or offer much more information than is needed.
• Discussion becomes circular; people repeat themselves without making any progress toward conclusions.

Guidelines for Facilitating a Meeting

Many authorities have recommended actions and attitudes which can help you facilitate a meeting well (Barge, 1991; Lumsden & Lumsden 2004; Parker & Hoffman, 2006). Here are several such suggestions, taken partly from these writers’ works and partly from the authors’ experiences as facilitators and participants in meetings over the years:

• Start promptly: Some time, calculate the cost to your group—even at minimum-wage rates—for the minutes its members sit around waiting for meetings to begin. You may occasionally be delayed for good reasons, but if you’re chronically late you’ll eventually aggravate folks who’ve arrived on time—the very ones whose professionalism you’d particularly like to reinforce and praise. Consistently starting on time may even boost morale: “Early in, early out” will probably appeal to most of a group’s members, since they are likely to have other things they need to do as soon as a meeting ends.
• Begin with something positive: Face it: no matter what you do, many people in your group would probably rather be somewhere else than in a meeting. If you’d like them to overcome this familiar aversion and get pumped up about what you’ll be doing in a meeting, therefore, you might emulate the practice of City Year, a Boston-based nonprofit international service organization. City Year begins its meetings by inviting members to describe from their own recent life experiences an example of what Robert F. Kennedy referred to as a “ripple of hope” (Grossman, 1998). This could be a good deed they’ve seen someone do for someone else, a news item about a decline in the crime rate, or perhaps even a loving note they’ve received from a child or other family member. Sharing with their fellow group members such examples of altruism, love, or community improvement focuses and motivates City Year members by reminding them in specific, personal terms of why their meetings can be truly worthwhile.
• Tend to housekeeping details: People’s productivity depends in part on their biological state. Once you convene your meeting, announce or remind the group members of where they can find restrooms, water fountains, vending machines, and any other amenities that may contribute to their physical comfort.
• Make sure people understand their roles. At the start of the meeting, review what you understand is going to happen and ask for confirmation of what you think people are expected to do in the time you’re going to be spending together. Calling on someone to make a report if he or she isn’t aware it’s required can be embarrassing for both you and that person.
• Keep to your agenda. Social time makes people happy and relieves stress. Most group meetings, however, should not consist primarily of social time. You may want to designate someone in the group to watch for departures from the agenda and courteously direct people back on task. Either you or the that person might want to periodically provide “ signposts ” indicating where you are in your process, too, such as “It looks like we’ve got 25 minutes left in our meeting, and we haven’t discussed yet who’s going to be working on the report to give to Mary.” If your meetings habitually exceed the time you allot for them, consider either budgeting more time or, if you want to stick to your guns, setting a kitchen timer to ring when you’ve reached the point when you’ve said you’ll quit. The co-founder of one technology firm, Jeff Atwood, put together a list of rules for his company’s meetings which included this one: “No meeting should ever be more than an hour, under penalty of death” (Milian, 2012). Similarly, the library staff at one college in the Midwest conducts all their meetings standing up in a circle, which encourages brevity and efficiency.
• Guide, don’t dictate: If you’re in charge of the meeting, that doesn’t mean you’re responsible for everything people say in it, nor does it mean you have to personally comment on every idea or proposal that comes up. Let the other members of the group carry the content as long as they’re not straying from the process you feel needs to be followed. You may see that some people regularly dominate discussion in your group’s meetings and that others are perhaps slower to talk despite having important contributions to make. One way to deal with these disparities is by providing the group with a “talking stick” and specifying that people must hold it in their hands in order to speak. You could also invoke the NOSTUESOrule  with respect to the talking stick, which says that “No One Speaks Twice Until Everybody Speaks Once.”
• Pay attention to nonverbal communication. As a meeting progresses, people’s physical and emotional states are likely to change. As the facilitator, you should do your best to identify such change and accommodate it within the structures and processes your group has established for itself. When people do something as simple as crossing their arms in front of them, for instance, they might be signaling that they’re closed to what others are saying—or they might just be trying to stay warm in a room that feels too cold to them. When one person in the meeting has the floor and is talking, it’s a good idea to watch how the rest of the group seems to be responding. You may notice clues indicating that people are pleased and receptive, or that they’re uninterested, skeptical, or even itching to respond negatively. You may want to do a perception check to see if you’re interpreting nonverbal cues accurately. For instance, you might say, “Terry, could we pause here a bit? I get the impression that people might have some questions for you.” As an alternative, you might address the whole group and ask “Does anyone have questions for Terry at this point?”
• Capture and assign action items. Unless they are held purely to communicate information, or for other special purposes, most meetings result in action items, tasks, and other assignments for one or more participants. Sometimes these items arise unexpectedly because someone comes up with a great new idea and volunteers or is assigned to pursue it after the discussion ends. Be on the alert for these elements of a meeting.
• Avoid sarcasm and cynicism. Encourage humor and merriment. If your agenda includes some challenging items, try to start out with “ quick wins ” to warm the mood of the group.
• Take breaks regularly, even when you think you don’t need them. If you’ve ever gone on a long hike on a beautiful day, you may have decided to continue a mile or two beyond your original intended destination because the scenery was beautiful and you were feeling spunky. If you’re like the authors, though, you probably regretted “going the extra mile” later because it meant you had to go back that mile plus all the rest of the way you’d come. Something similar can arise in a meeting. People sometimes feel full of energy and clamor to keep a lively discussion going past the time scheduled for a break, but they may not realize that they’re tiring and losing focus until someone says or does something ill-advised. Taking even five-minute breathers at set intervals can help group members remain physically refreshed over the long haul.
• Show respect for everyone. Seek consensus. Avoid groupthink by encouraging a free and full airing of opinions. Observe the Golden Rule. Listen sincerely to everyone, but avoid giving a small minority so much clout that in disputed matters “99-to-1 is a tie.” Keep disagreements agreeable. If you must criticize, criticize positions, not people. There is never a need to comment on people’s identities when you are in a disagreement (i.e., sex, race, sexual orientation, etc.) If someone’s behavior shows a pattern of consistently irritating others or disrupting the flow of your group’s meetings, talk to the person privately and express your concern in a polite but clear fashion. Be specific in stating what you expect the person to do or stop doing, and keep an open mind to whatever response you receive.
• Expect the unexpected. Do your best to anticipate and prepare for confrontations and conflicts. If you didn’t already make time to do so earlier, take a minute just before the start of the meeting to mark items on your agenda which you think might turn out to be especially contentious or time-consuming. When unexpected disagreements occur during the meeting allow for dialogue and embrace other meeting suggestions (e.g., respect one another, take breaks when needed, avoid sarcasm, etc.). At the extreme, if an unexpected disagreement emerges which might derail the rest of the meeting, table the contentious item, invite outside task that might help the group reach a resolution, and place the issue on the agenda for a future meeting.
• Conduct multiple assessments of the meeting. Formative assessment takes place during an activity and allows people to modify their behavior in response to its results. Why not perform a brief interim evaluation during every meeting in which you ask, for instance, “If we were to end this meeting right now, where would it be, and if we need to make changes now in what’s happening in our meeting, what should they be?” Summative assessment is implemented at the end of an activity. When you finish a meeting, for example, you might check to see how well people feel that the gathering met its intended goals. If you want something in writing, you might distribute a half sheet of paper to each person asking “What was best about our meeting?” and “What might have made this meeting better?” Or you could write two columns on a whiteboard, one with a plus and the other with a minus, and ask people orally to identify items they think belong in each category. If you feel a less formal check-up is sufficient, you might just go around the table or room and ask every person for one word that captures how she or he feels.
• Think (and talk) ahead. If you didn’t write it on your agenda—which would have been a good idea, most likely—remind group members, before the meeting breaks up, of where and when their next gathering is to take place.

POST-Meeting Communication

Once the meeting has accomplished its goals in the established time frame, it is time to facilitate the transition to a conclusion. Many meeting facilitators conclude by summarizing what has been discussed or decided, and what actions the group members are to take as a result of the meeting. If there is a clear purpose for holding a subsequent meeting, discuss the time and date, and specifically note assignments for next time. This information is also recorded in meeting minutes.

Minutes  are a written document that serves to record the interaction and can provide an opportunity for clarification. Minutes often appear as the agenda with notes in relation to actions taken during the meeting or specific indications of who is responsible for what before the next meeting. In many organizations, minutes of the meeting are tentative, like a rough draft, until they are approved by the members of the group or committee. Normally minutes are sent within a week of the meeting if it is a monthly event, and more quickly if the need to meet more frequently has been determined. If your group or organization does not call for minutes, you can still benefit by reviewing your notes after a meeting and comparing them with those of others to make sure you understood what was discussed and did not miss—or misinterpret—any key information.

Using Technology to Facilitate Meetings

Given the widespread availability and increasingly low cost of electronic communication, technologies that once served to bring people together across continents and time zones are now also serving people in the same geographic area. Rather than traveling (by plane, car, or even elevator within the same building) to a central point for a face-to-face interaction, busy and cost-conscious professionals often choose to see and hear each other via one of many different electronic interface technologies (e.g., Teams, Skype, Zoom, WebEx, etc.). It is important to be aware of the dimensions of nonverbal communication that are lost in a virtual meeting compared to an in-person meeting. Nevertheless, these technologies are a boon to today’s business organizations, and knowing how to use them is a key skill for all job seekers. We will discuss the technologies by category, beginning with audio-only, then audio-visual, and finally social media.

Audio-Only Interactions

The simplest form of audio-only interaction is, of course, a telephone call. Chances are that you have been using the phone all your life, yet did you know that some executives hire professional voice coaches to help them increase their effectiveness in phone communication? When you stop to think about it, we use a great many audio-only modes of communication, ranging from phone calls and voice-activated telephone menus to radio interviews, public address systems, dictation recording systems, and computer voice recognition technology. The importance of audio communication in the business world has increased with the availability of conference calls, Web conferences, and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) communications.

Your voice has qualities that cannot be communicated in written form, and you can use these qualities to your advantage as you interact with colleagues. Your tone, quality, volume, pitch, and other vocal qualities affect how your message will be received. If you are sending a general informative message to all employees, an e-mail may serve you well, but if you are congratulating one employee on receiving an industry award, your voice as the channel carries your enthusiasm.

Take care to pay attention to your  pronunciation  of words, stating them correctly in normal ways, and avoiding words that you are not comfortable with as you may mispronounce them. Mispronunciation can have a negative impact on your reputation or perceived credibility. Instead of using complicated words that may cause you to stumble, choose a simple phrase if you can, or learn to pronounce the word correctly before you use it in a formal interactive setting.

Audio-Visual Interactions

Rather than call each other, we often call and interact in both audio and visual ways via the Internet. There are several ways to interface via audio and video, and new technologies in this area are being invented all the time. For example, platforms like Zoom or WebEx allow participants to see and hear each other across time and distance with one-on-one calls and video conferencing. This form of audio-visual communication is quickly becoming a low- or no-cost business tool for interaction.

If you are going to interact via audio and visual signals, make sure you are prepared. Appropriate dress, setting, and attitude are all required. Pay close attention to your surroundings and what will be visible to others. The integration of a visual signal to the traditional phone call means that nonverbal gestures can now be observed in real time and can both aid and detract from the message.

If you are unfamiliar with the technology, practice with it before your actual business interaction. Try out the features with a friend and know where to find and access the information. If the call doesn’t go as planned, or the signal isn’t what you expected or experienced in the past, keep a good attitude and try again.

Recent evidence suggests that audio-video meetings can be more exhausting. This is because members work hard to focus on their own and others non-verbal cues (Fosslien & Duffy, 2020). So, while there are many benefits to ‘cameras on’ it may also be useful to have meetings with ‘cameras off’ or ‘cameras optional.’ This high-intensity exhaustion even has its own concept: Zoom Fatigue. . Fosslien and Duffy (2020) offer five tips to avoid Zoom fatigure:

• Build in breaks
• Reduce onscreen stimuli–avoid multitasking and close extra windows/applications
• Make virtual social events opt-in
• Switch to phone calls or email
• For external calls, avoid defaulting to video, especially if you don’t know each other well

Whether the meeting is virtual, face-to-face, or over the phone many of the same principles still apply. As a meeting organizer you need to have an agenda, invite only those who are needed to accomplish the meeting goals, be clear about who is doing what, and prepare for (valuable) deliberation.

TIPS FOR VIRTUAL MEETINGS

Here are some further tips and suggestions for leading or participating in virtual meetings, each based on the unique features of such gatherings:

• Get all the participants in an audio meeting to say something brief at the start of the meeting so that everyone becomes familiar with everyone else’s voice.
• Remind people of the purpose of the meeting and of the key outcome(s) you hope to achieve together.
• Listen/watch for people who aren’t participating and ask them periodically if they have thoughts or suggestions to add to the discussion.
• Summarize the status of the meeting from time to time.
• Because you may not have nonverbal cues to refer to, ask other members to clarify their meanings and intentions if you’re not sure their words alone convey all you need to know.
• If you know you’re going to have to leave a meeting before it ends, inform the organizer in advance. Sign off publicly, but quickly, when you leave rather than just hanging up on the meeting connection.
• Barge, J.K. (1991, November). Task skills and competence in group leadership. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
• Fosslien, L., & Duffy, M. W. (2020). How to combat zoom fatigue.  Harvard Business Review ,  29 .
• Grossman, J. (1998, April). We’ve got to start meeting like this. Inc., 70–74.
• Guffey, M. (2017). Essentials of business communication (7th ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth.
• Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (2004). Communicating in groups and teams: Sharing leadeship( 4th ed.). Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
• Milian, M. (2012, June 11-June 17). It’s not you, it’s meetings. Bloomberg Businessweek, 51–52.
• Parker, G., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Meeting excellence: 33 tools to lead meetings that get results. Jossey-Bass.
• Tucker, M., Meyer, G., & Westman, J. (1986). Thinking through communication: An introduction to the study of human communication. Allyn & Bacon.

Author & Attribution

This remix comes from Dr. Jasmine Linabary at Emporia State University. This chapter is also available in her book:  Small Group Communication: Forming and Sustaining Teams. The sections “Preparation,” “Post-Meeting Communication” and “Using Technology to Facilitate Meetings” are adapted from “ Business and Professional Meeting s” in Business Communication for Success from the University of Minnesota. The book was adapted from a work produced and distributed under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-SA) by a publisher who has requested that they and the original author not receive attribution. This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license . The section “Facilitating an Effective Meeting” is adapted and remixed from “ Groups and Meetings ” from An Introduction To Group Communication . This content is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) License without attribution as requested by the work’s original creator or licensor.

The specific goal for the specific meeting, presentation, or team which clearly relate to the overall goals of the group or committee.

a list of topics to be discussed ahead of a meeting

No One Speaks Twice Until Everybody Speaks Once.

Asking others if your interpretation of their non-verbals is appropriate (e.g., "It seems like we agree, could someone share a concern?"

A set of negative group-level processes, including illusions of invulnerability, self-censorship, and pressures to conform, that occur when highly cohesive groups seek concurrence when making a decision.

A range of formal and informal assessment procedures conducted during the process (e.g. midway through a meeting) in order to modify activities to improve process.

Assessment of participants where the focus is on the outcome of a program--summative assessments occur at the end of a program.

a written document that serves to record the interaction and can provide an opportunity for clarification. Minutes often appear as the agenda with notes in relation to actions taken during the meeting or specific indications of who is responsible for what before the next meeting.

Exhaustion stemming from concentration required to observe others and oneself on video, engaging in multitasking while talking with others online, and other challenges.

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

Share This Book

Members-only Content

• Monthly Member Events
• Event Session Videos
• Experience Reports
• Research Papers
• Share a Community Event
• Submit an Article to the Blog
• Submit a Member Initiative
• Promote a Training Event

Become an Agile Alliance member!

Your membership enables us to offer a wealth of resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and so much more! And, while you’re supporting our non-profit mission, you’ll also gain access to a range of valuable member benefits. Learn more

• Join Us Today
• Member Portal
• Membership FAQs
• Terms and Conditions
• Corporate Members

Agile Conferences

• Agile en Chile 2024
• Agile Executive Forum
• Agile2024 European Experience
• All Agile Alliance Events
• Past Conferences
• Become an Event Sponsor

Virtual Events

• Member Events Calendar
• Agile MiniCon
• BYOC Lean Coffee
• Agile Tech Talks
• Member Meet & Greet
• Agile Coaching Network
• Full Events Calendar
• Community Events
• Non-profit Events
• Agile Training
• Sponsored Meetup Groups
• Submit a Non-profit Event
• Submit a For-profit Training
• Event Funding Request
• Global Events Calendars

Agile MiniCon – The Art of Scaling & Descaling

• Events Calendar
• BYOC – Lean Coffee
• Member Meet & Greet
• View All Events
• Submit an Event
• Meetup Groups
• Past Conferences & Events

Agile Essentials is designed to bring you up to speed on the basic concepts and principles of Agile with articles, videos, glossary terms, and more.

Agile Essentials

Download the Agile Manifesto

To download a free PDF copy of the Agile Manifesto and 12 Principles of Agile, simply sign-up for our newsletter. Agile Alliance members can download it for free.

• Agile Essentials Overview
• Agile Manifesto
• 12 Principles Behind the Manifesto
• A Short History of Agile
• Subway Map to Agile Practices
• Agile Glossary
• Introductory Videos

Recent Blog Posts

Agile Coach Camp Worldwide is going to Costa Rica

Agile Alliance Call for Nominations for the Board of Directors

Agile Alliance Launches Young Professionals Committee

View all blog posts

Agile Resources

The new agile resource guide.

Find Agile services and products from our member companies in our new Agile Resource Guide . Many listings in the guide feature exclusive offers just for Agile Alliance members. View the guide 

• Remote Working Guide
• Event Sessions
• Content Library

Sustainability Manifesto

The  Agile Sustainability Initiative has created the Agile Sustainability Manifesto in an effort to grow awareness about sustainability within the Agile community and inspire a more sustainable way of working. Read and sign now

MEMBER INITIATIVES

• Agile Sustainability Initiative
• Principle 12 Initiative
• Agile in Color Initiative
• Agile Coach Camp Worldwide
• Agile Coaching Ethics

View all initiatives

Your Community

Global development.

• LATAM Community
• India Community

Global Affiliates

• Community Groups
• Community Services
• Member Initiatives
• LATAM Community Development
• India Community Development
• Volunteer Signup

OUR POLICIES

Become a sponsor.

Being an Agile Alliance sponsor is a great way to introduce your company to our members to build awareness around your products and services. The Call for Agile2024 Sponsorships is now open, and there are great options and opportunities still available! Learn more >

• About Agile Alliance
• Code of Conduct
• Board of Directors
• Agile Alliance Brazil
• Agile Alliance New Zealand
• Policies, Reports & Bylaws
• Logo and Media Files
• Become a Sponsor

Agile Event Session

Problem solving teams: creating resilient organisations through managing complexity, this video content is for agile alliance members only.

If you’re already an active member, please log in now .

To view this content, and gain access to many more valuable resources, conference discounts, and invitations to exclusive networking and learning events, please consider becoming an Agile Alliance member .

Abstract/Description

One reason many of us came to the field of software engineering or software development is because we enjoy solving problems. It exercises out mental muscles, and gives us a feeling of satisfaction to know we can add value to our organizations and customers by solving tough problems. However, as the organizations we work for get bigger, and the scope of work gets bigger, so too do the problems we need to solve. There comes a point where we can’t solve them alone, or even with the immediate team we work with. Some problems require a cross-organization, multi-function approach. When our goal is to be a more agile, lean-thinking organization, we need to develop approaches to solving these types of problems.

This is where Problem Solving Teams come into play. Problem Solving Teams are temporary structures that bring together leaders and team members from across the organization to focus on solving a specific problem. The benefits are many, including not just a solved problem, but also a more resilient organization, a stronger social network and a growing cohort of problem solvers with increased skills and abilities.

This approach draws from many influences, including complexity science, social network theory, military doctrine, flight crews, and emergency responders. We have been experimenting with this approach across several areas that involve multiple geographies and multiple functions.

Additional Resources

Speaker(s) may be willing to present this session at local group meetings and other events.

• Conference or Event
• Session Type
• Audience Levels

More Agile Event Session Videos

Agile – 5 key points for managers

Hacking Culture for Change Management

Have a comment join the conversation, discover the many benefits of membership.

Your membership enables Agile Alliance to offer a wealth of first-rate resources, present renowned international events, support global community groups, and more — all geared toward helping Agile practitioners reach their full potential and deliver innovative, Agile solutions.

Thank you to our valued Agile Alliance Annual Partners

Our new Annual Partner Program offers a new and exciting level of engagement beyond event sponsorship.

Our Cornerstone Corporate Supporting Members

Our Corporate Supporting Members are vital to the mission of Agile Alliance.  Click here to view all corporate members.

©2024 Agile Alliance  |  All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

©2024 Agile Alliance All Rights Reserved  |  Privacy Policy

• Welcome back!

Not yet a member? Sign up now

• Renew Membership
• Agile Alliance Events
• Agile en Español
• Agile en Chile
• Resources Overview
• Agile Books
• Content Library by Category
• Content Standards
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Privacy Overview

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

• Identify the Problem
• Define the Problem
• Form a Strategy
• Organize Information
• Allocate Resources
• Monitor Progress
• Evaluate the Results

Frequently Asked Questions

Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.

The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything they can about the issue and then using factual knowledge to come up with a solution. In other instances, creativity and insight are the best options.

It is not necessary to follow problem-solving steps sequentially, It is common to skip steps or even go back through steps multiple times until the desired solution is reached.

In order to correctly solve a problem, it is often important to follow a series of steps. Researchers sometimes refer to this as the problem-solving cycle. While this cycle is portrayed sequentially, people rarely follow a rigid series of steps to find a solution.

The following steps include developing strategies and organizing knowledge.

1. Identifying the Problem

While it may seem like an obvious step, identifying the problem is not always as simple as it sounds. In some cases, people might mistakenly identify the wrong source of a problem, which will make attempts to solve it inefficient or even useless.

Some strategies that you might use to figure out the source of a problem include :

• Asking questions about the problem
• Breaking the problem down into smaller pieces
• Looking at the problem from different perspectives
• Conducting research to figure out what relationships exist between different variables

2. Defining the Problem

After the problem has been identified, it is important to fully define the problem so that it can be solved. You can define a problem by operationally defining each aspect of the problem and setting goals for what aspects of the problem you will address

At this point, you should focus on figuring out which aspects of the problems are facts and which are opinions. State the problem clearly and identify the scope of the solution.

3. Forming a Strategy

After the problem has been identified, it is time to start brainstorming potential solutions. This step usually involves generating as many ideas as possible without judging their quality. Once several possibilities have been generated, they can be evaluated and narrowed down.

The next step is to develop a strategy to solve the problem. The approach used will vary depending upon the situation and the individual's unique preferences. Common problem-solving strategies include heuristics and algorithms.

• Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are often based on solutions that have worked in the past. They can work well if the problem is similar to something you have encountered before and are often the best choice if you need a fast solution.
• Algorithms are step-by-step strategies that are guaranteed to produce a correct result. While this approach is great for accuracy, it can also consume time and resources.

Heuristics are often best used when time is of the essence, while algorithms are a better choice when a decision needs to be as accurate as possible.

4. Organizing Information

Before coming up with a solution, you need to first organize the available information. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? The more information that is available the better prepared you will be to come up with an accurate solution.

When approaching a problem, it is important to make sure that you have all the data you need. Making a decision without adequate information can lead to biased or inaccurate results.

5. Allocating Resources

Of course, we don't always have unlimited money, time, and other resources to solve a problem. Before you begin to solve a problem, you need to determine how high priority it is.

If it is an important problem, it is probably worth allocating more resources to solving it. If, however, it is a fairly unimportant problem, then you do not want to spend too much of your available resources on coming up with a solution.

At this stage, it is important to consider all of the factors that might affect the problem at hand. This includes looking at the available resources, deadlines that need to be met, and any possible risks involved in each solution. After careful evaluation, a decision can be made about which solution to pursue.

6. Monitoring Progress

After selecting a problem-solving strategy, it is time to put the plan into action and see if it works. This step might involve trying out different solutions to see which one is the most effective.

It is also important to monitor the situation after implementing a solution to ensure that the problem has been solved and that no new problems have arisen as a result of the proposed solution.

Effective problem-solvers tend to monitor their progress as they work towards a solution. If they are not making good progress toward reaching their goal, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies .

7. Evaluating the Results

After a solution has been reached, it is important to evaluate the results to determine if it is the best possible solution to the problem. This evaluation might be immediate, such as checking the results of a math problem to ensure the answer is correct, or it can be delayed, such as evaluating the success of a therapy program after several months of treatment.

Once a problem has been solved, it is important to take some time to reflect on the process that was used and evaluate the results. This will help you to improve your problem-solving skills and become more efficient at solving future problems.

A Word From Verywell​

It is important to remember that there are many different problem-solving processes with different steps, and this is just one example. Problem-solving in real-world situations requires a great deal of resourcefulness, flexibility, resilience, and continuous interaction with the environment.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can stop dwelling in a negative mindset.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

You can become a better problem solving by:

• Practicing brainstorming and coming up with multiple potential solutions to problems
• Being open-minded and considering all possible options before making a decision
• Breaking down problems into smaller, more manageable pieces
• Asking for help when needed
• Researching different problem-solving techniques and trying out new ones
• Learning from mistakes and using them as opportunities to grow

It's important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about what's going on. Try to see things from their perspective as well as your own. Work together to find a resolution that works for both of you. Be willing to compromise and accept that there may not be a perfect solution.

Take breaks if things are getting too heated, and come back to the problem when you feel calm and collected. Don't try to fix every problem on your own—consider asking a therapist or counselor for help and insight.

If you've tried everything and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the problem, you may have to learn to accept it. This can be difficult, but try to focus on the positive aspects of your life and remember that every situation is temporary. Don't dwell on what's going wrong—instead, think about what's going right. Find support by talking to friends or family. Seek professional help if you're having trouble coping.

Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ, editors.  The Psychology of Problem Solving .  Cambridge University Press; 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771

Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving .  Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. Published 2018 Jun 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:42px;color:#F5F4F3;}@media (max-width: 1120px){.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:12px;}} Join us: Learn how to build a trusted AI strategy to support your company's intelligent transformation, featuring Forrester .css-1ixh9fn{display:inline-block;}@media (max-width: 480px){.css-1ixh9fn{display:block;margin-top:12px;}} .css-1uaoevr-heading-6{font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-1uaoevr-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} .css-ora5nu-heading-6{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:flex-start;justify-content:flex-start;color:#0D0E10;-webkit-transition:all 0.3s;transition:all 0.3s;position:relative;font-size:16px;line-height:28px;padding:0;font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{border-bottom:0;color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover path{fill:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div{border-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div:before{border-left-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active{border-bottom:0;background-color:#EBE8E8;color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active path{fill:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div{border-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div:before{border-left-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} Register now .css-1k6cidy{width:11px;height:11px;margin-left:8px;}.css-1k6cidy path{fill:currentColor;}

• Business strategy |
• Problem management: 8 steps to better p ...

Problem management: 8 steps to better problem solving

Problem management is an 8 step framework most commonly used by IT teams. You can use problem management to solve for repeating major incidents. By organizing and structuring your problem solving, you can more effectively get to the root cause of high-impact problems—and devise a solution. Solving the root cause prevents recurrence and creates a repeatable solution to use on similar errors in the future.

In an IT department, errors and mishaps are part of the job. You can't always control these problems, but you can control how you respond to them with problem management. Problem management helps you solve larger problems and reduce the risk that they’ll happen again by identifying all connected problems, solving them, and planning for the future.

What is problem management?

Problem management is an 8 step framework most commonly used by IT teams. Your team can use problem management to solve for repeating major incidents. By organizing and structuring your problem solving, you can more effectively get to the root cause of high-impact problems—and devise a solution. Problem management is a process—used mostly by IT teams—to identify, react, and respond to issues. It’s not for every problem, but it’s a useful response when multiple major incidents occur that cause large work interruptions. Unlike problem solving, problem management goes beyond the initial incident to discover and dissect the root causes, preventing future incidents with permanent solutions.

The goals of problem management are to:

Prevent problems before they start.

Solve for repetitive errors.

Lessen each incident’s impact. 

Problem management vs. incident management 

Example: Someone leaves their unprotected laptop in a coffee shop, causing a security breach. The security team can use incident management to solve for this one, isolated event. In this case, the team could manually shut down the accounts connected to that laptop. If this continues to happen, IT would use problem management to solve the root of this issue—perhaps installing more security features on each company laptop so that if employees lose them, no one else can access the information.

Problem management vs. problem solving

While similar in name, problem management differs slightly from problem-solving. Problem management focuses on every aspect of the incident—identifying the root cause of the problem, solving it, and prevention. Problem solving is, as the name implies, focused solely on the solution step. 

Example: You’re launching a new password management system when it crashes—again. You don’t know if anything leaked, but you know it could contain confidential information. Plus, it’s happened before. You start the problem management process to ensure it doesn’t happen again. In that process, you’ll use problem solving as a step to fix the issue. In this case, perhaps securing confidential information before you try to launch a new software.

Problem management vs. change management 

Change management targets large transitions within your workplace, good and bad. These inevitable changes aren’t always negative, so you can’t always apply problem management as a solution. That’s where change management comes in—a framework that helps you adjust to any new scenario.

Example: Your company is transitioning to a new cloud platform. The transition happens incident-free—meaning you won’t need problem management—but you can ease the transition by implementing some change management best practices. Preparing and training team members in the new software is a good place to start.

Problem management vs. project management

Project management is the framework for larger collections of work. It’s the overarching method for how you work on any project, hit goals, and get results. You can use project management to help you with problem management, but they are not the same thing. Problem management and project management work together to solve issues as part of your problem management process.

Example: During problem management, you uncover a backend security issue that needs to be addressed—employees are using storage software with outdated security measures. To solve this, you create a project and outline the tasks from start to finish. In this case, you might need to alert senior executives, get approval to remove the software, and alert employees. You create a project schedule with a defined timeline and assign the tasks to relevant teams. In this process, you identified a desired outcome—remove the unsafe software—and solved it. That’s project management.

The 8 steps of problem management

It’s easy to get upset when problems occur. In fact, it’s totally normal. But an emotional response is not always the best response when faced with new incidents. Having a reliable system—such as problem management—removes the temptation to respond emotionally. Proactive project management gives your team a framework for problem solving. It’s an iterative process —the more you use it, the more likely you are to have fewer problems, faster response times, and better outputs. 

1. Identify the problem

During problem identification, you’re looking at the present—what’s happening right now? Here, you’ll define what the incident is and its scale. Is this a small, quick-fix, or a full overhaul? Consider using problem framing to define, prioritize, and understand the obstacles involved with these more complex problems. 

2. Diagnose the cause

Use problem analysis or root cause analysis to strategically look at the cause of a problem. Follow the trail of issues all the way back to its beginnings.

To diagnose the underlying cause, you’ll want to answer:

What factors or conditions led to the incident?

Do you see related incidents? Could those be coming from the same source?

Did someone miss a step? Are processes responsible for this problem?

3. Organize and prioritize

Now it’s time to build out your framework. Use an IT project plan to organize information in a space where everyone can make and see updates in real time. The easiest way to do this is with a project management tool where you can input ‌tasks, assign deadlines, and add dependencies to ensure nothing gets missed. To better organize your process, define:

What needs to be done? 

Who’s responsible for each aspect? If no one is, can we assign someone? 

When does each piece need to be completed?

What is the final number of incidents related to this problem?

Are any of these tasks dependent on another one? Do you need to set up dependencies ?

What are your highest priorities? How do they affect our larger business goals ? 

How should you plan for this in the future?

4. Create a workaround

If the incident has stopped work or altered it, you might need to create a workaround. This is not always necessary, but temporary workarounds can keep work on track and avoid backlog while you go through the problem management steps. When these workarounds are especially effective, you can make them permanent processes.

5. Update your known error database

Every time an incident occurs, create a known error record and add it to your known error database (KEDB). Recording incidents helps you catch recurrences and logs the solution, so you know how to solve similar errors in the future. 

6. Pause for change management (if necessary)

Larger, high-impact problems might require change management. For example, if you realize the problem’s root cause is a lack of staff, you might dedicate team members to help. You can use change management to help them transition their responsibilities, see how these new roles fit in with the entire team, and determine how they will collaborate moving forward.

7. Solve the problem

This is the fun part—you get to resolve problems. At this stage, you should know exactly what you’re dealing with and the steps you need to take. But remember—with problem management, it’s not enough to solve the current problem. You’ll want to take any steps to prevent this from happening again in the future. That could mean hiring a new role to cover gaps in workflows , investing in new softwares and tools, or training staff on best practices to prevent these types of incidents.

Read: Turn your team into skilled problem solvers with these problem-solving strategies

8. Reflect on the process

The problem management process has the added benefit of recording the process in its entirety, so you can review it in the future. Once you’ve solved the problem, take the time to review each step and reflect on the lessons learned during this process. Make note of who was involved, what you needed, and any opportunities to improve your response to the next incident. After you go through the problem management process a few times and understand the basic steps, stakeholders, workload, and resources you need, create a template to make the kickoff process easier in the future.

5 benefits of problem management

Problem management helps you discover every piece of the problem—from the current scenario down to its root cause. Not only does this have an immediate positive impact on the current issue at hand, it also promotes collaboration and helps to build a better product overall. 

Here are five other ways ‌problem management can benefit your team:

Avoids repeat incidents. When you manage the entire incident from start to finish, you will address the foundational problems that caused it. This leads to fewer repeat incidents.

Boosts cross-functional collaboration. Problem management is a collaborative process. One incident might require collaboration from IT, the security team, and legal. Depending on the level of the problem, it might trickle all the way back down to the product or service team, where core changes need to be made.

Creates a better user experience. It’s simple—the fewer incidents you have, the better your customer’s experience will be. Reducing incidents means fewer delays, downtime, and frustrations for your users, and a higher rate of customer satisfaction.

Improves response time. As you develop a flow and framework with a project management process, you’ll be better equipped to handle future incidents—even if they’re different scenarios.

Organizes problem solving. Problem management provides a structured, thoughtful approach to solving problems. This reduces impulsive responses and helps you keep a better problem record of incidents and solutions.

Problem management leads to better, faster solutions

IT teams will always have to deal with incidents, but they don’t have to be bogged down by them. That’s because problem management works. Whether you employ a full problem management team or choose to apply these practices to your current IT infrastructure, problem management—especially when combined with a project management tool—saves you time and effort down the road.

With IT project plans, we’ve made it easier than ever to track your problem management work in a shared tool. Try our free IT project template to see your work come together, effortlessly.

Related resources

Solve your tech overload with an intelligent transformation

9 steps to craft a successful go-to-market (GTM) strategy

Unmanaged business goals don’t work. Here’s what does.

How Asana uses work management to effectively manage goals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Group learning capacity: the roles of open-mindedness and shared vision

Open-mindedness (OPM) is a construct that is considered a key foundational aspect of learning in individuals, groups and organizations. Also known as critical inquiry or reflection, OPM is believed to increase learning through examination of prior beliefs, decisions and mistakes, and also through openness to new ideas. Renowned theorists including Dewey and Argyris have emphasized the relationship between OPM and learning, yet little quantitative research has tested it or examined moderators of the linkage. The setting for the current study is that of endowment investment committees at U.S. universities and colleges who need to make knowledgeable and well-reasoned decisions about the composition of investment portfolios. Findings indicate that OPM has a positive, significant effect on group learning capacity (LCAP) and also that shared vision, which represents the group's collective purpose and direction, moderates that relationship. The literature review and discussion offer insights about how OPM is related to the research on group conflict, and how shared vision (SHV) differs from concepts such as interpersonal cohesiveness and conformity that have been associated with groupthink. A review of relevant research from the fields of organizational learning, group dynamics, and absorptive capacity provides context for the development of the hypotheses and the discussion of findings.

Introduction

From Socrates to modern learning theorists, open-mindedness (OPM) has been considered essential to learning and understanding. Dewey ( 1933 ), Kolb ( 1984 ) and Argyris ( 1976 ) all have underscored the significance that the ancient Greeks placed on inquiry, openness, dialog, and critical reflection. Yet empirical research examining the relationship between OPM and learning is scant relative to the volumes on theory, and particularly in group decision-making domains. In addition, little empirical research has explored how interpersonal dynamics in groups might moderate the relationship between OPM and learning.

The purpose of this study, situated within the broad fields of organizational learning and behavior, is to provide additional insights about how groups learn and especially about the types of dialogs and group dynamics that foster learning. We will test the relationship between OPM and learning capacity (LCAP) in decision-making groups, as well as the effect of shared vision (SHV) on that relationship. In our literature review and discussion, we will explore how different types of cohesiveness affect group learning and effectiveness, and whether SHV is situated within the cohesiveness spectrum. We will argue that because SHV coexists with OPM in this study, it provides a positive contribution to group learning capacity. In contrast, if SHV co-existed with closed-mindedness, one could expect it (along with closed-mindedness) to detract from group learning capacity. In the latter context, SHV might be related to the strong interpersonal attraction aspect of cohesiveness associated with groupthink, a type of behavior that lacks independent critical thinking and is focused primarily on reaching consensus (Janis, 1972 , 1983 ), thus restricting group learning capacity.

Given that OPM and group task conflict overlap with regards to the emphasis placed on critical reflection and assessment, we suggest that literature on task conflict has strong relevance to this study. Task conflict occurs when there are “disagreements among group members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions” (Jehn, 1995 , p. 258). We will discuss similarities between OPM and task conflict, and especially when expressions of task conflict are mild rather than intense (Todorova et al., 2014 ). While task conflict has been researched predominantly in terms of its positive influence on decision quality, the current study uses the concept of OPM as a predictor and examines its influence on a different dependent variable, learning capacity.

We adopt the term LCAP as our dependent variable because it signifies the ability of organizations, groups/teams and individuals to engage in learning processes leading to positive outcomes such as performance, competitive advantage, innovation, adaptability, and knowledge transfer (Volberda et al., 2010 ; Van Wijk et al., 2011 ). The term has been used as a synonym for “absorptive capacity” to describe a group's ability to acquire relevant external information, integrate it with existing knowledge, and exploit it to commercial benefit (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990 ). LCAP has been characterized as a process of gaining knowledge (Lane et al., 2006 ), which is considered a key resource of an organization and a primary source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991 ; Grant, 1996 ; Kogut and Zander, 1996 ).

We define OPM as a group's critical assessment of its assumptions, beliefs and prior actions, as well as its openness to new ideas (Sinkula et al., 1997 ; Calantone et al., 2002 ). This critical assessment concept resembles Dewey's description of reflection: “assessing the grounds (justification) of one's beliefs” (Dewey, 1933 , p. 9). Reflection is often used as a synonym for higher-order processes (Mezirow, 1990 ) or double-loop learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978 ), which results in transcending current ways of thinking and acting. The OPM construct in this study also bears strong resemblance to the term “authentic inquiry” (Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008 ), which encourages critical reflection and open dialog. Without open dialog, individuals may engage in defensive routines that inhibit their learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978 ). They may not be willing to examine and learn from past mistakes and thus may withhold information that they perceive as detrimental to others' perceptions of themselves. When authentic dialog is encouraged, members are more likely to confront conflict through inquiry and to seek understanding without engaging in power struggles (Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008 ).

The OPM construct has been employed widely in marketing literature as a first-order factor within a second-order reflective factor called learning orientation, which is described as a set of organizational values that influence individuals' and groups' propensity to seek and use knowledge (Sinkula et al., 1997 ). Organizations with a learning orientation have a sense of direction for their learning as well as a critical-assessment approach that encourages open debates and questioning of assumptions (Slater and Narver, 1995 ). Learning orientation studies typically include learning commitment and SHV as other first-order factors. To the best of our knowledge, the current study is unique in focusing on OPM and SHV as stand-alone factors that influence learning capacity. We employ OPM as having the main effect on LCAP due to its prominence in theoretical literature, and SHV as a moderator due to its motivational and purpose-oriented characteristics that would enhance the primary relationship. Learning commitment is not included in this study since we believe that its characteristics are largely subsumed in SHV and OPM.

Unlike other studies on LCAP and its antecedents in the domains of manufacturing, marketing and information technology, this study's domain is that of decision-making committees in non-profit institutions, and specifically the investment committees of college and university endowments. These committees, composed largely of alumni volunteers, typically are charged with making important decisions affecting the composition and performance of endowment portfolios. Understanding factors that affect portfolio decisions and performance is critical for college and university leaders since the endowment earnings can have a significant impact on the financial health of the institution (Brown et al., 2010 ). As with many other decision-making groups whose environments are constantly changing, investment committees need to be able to acquire relevant information from the external world (i.e., the financial markets and external experts) on a continual basis, to assimilate it with their existing knowledge, and to implement it successfully. In a quantitative study about endowment management (Lord, 2014b ), committees who understood how to implement their investment-related knowledge had more diversified portfolios and higher risk-adjusted returns.

In the following section, we will formalize our hypotheses by examining research on learning capacity, OPM and shared vision. Our empirical study is based on a survey of “key informants” who are involved with investment committees at 168 U.S. university endowments.

Background and hypotheses

Our study is situated in the field of organizational learning, which has been defined as a process of improving organizational actions through better knowledge and understanding (Fiol and Lyles, 1985 ; Garvin, 1993 ). Organizational learning researchers have addressed cognitive types of learning (Kolb, 1984 ; Argyris, 1999 ) as well as learning processes (Levitt and March, 1988 ; Huber, 1991 ; Tippins and Sohi, 2003 ). Certain researchers (Huber, 1991 ; Tippins and Sohi, 2003 ) refer to four processes in organizational learning: (a) information acquisition; (b) information sharing; (c) information interpretation; and (d) information storage. Other organizational learning researchers refer to only two processes: (a) explore and exploit (March, 1991 ); (b) organizational search and trial/error (Levitt and March, 1988 ); and (c) reflection and action (Edmondson, 2002 ). Learning theorists differ as to whether taking action (or exploiting) is a requirement of organizational learning. Huber ( 1991 ) and Tippins and Sohi ( 2003 ) clearly do not have that requirement. In fact, Huber states that organizational learning has occurred if, through the group's processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors has changed. In contrast, Edmondson ( 2002 ), March ( 1991 ) and Levitt and March ( 1988 ) clearly require that action must be taken in order for learning to have occurred.

Another stream of research related to the field of organizational learning is called “knowledge management” (Bassi, 1999 ), which focuses largely on managing what is learned, including storing and retrieving knowledge. Also related is the dynamic capabilities framework, developed by Teece et al. ( 1997 ), which refers to the ability to renew and adapt competencies in order to be in sync with rapidly changing business environments.

While incorporating aspects of these related constructs, LCAP is distinguished by its emphasis on acquiring relevant “external” information and by its imperative of implementing or “exploiting” the knowledge successfully. LCAP has been theorized and employed in research studies as having one, two, three or four dimensions (or processes). In early conceptualizations of the learning (or absorptive) capacity construct, Cohen and Levinthal ( 1989 , 1990 ) referred to its three dimensions of identifying relevant information, assimilating it, and applying new knowledge successfully, yet they did not provide a measurement tool other than research and development expenditures. Szulanski ( 1996 ) used a unidimensional measure and found that the lack of recipient absorptive capacity is a major barrier to knowledge transfer between different functions in an organization. Zahra and George ( 2002 ) re-conceptualized the construct into two primary dimensions with each having two sub-dimensions: potential absorptive capacity consisting of acquisition and assimilation of new external knowledge; and realized absorptive capacity consisting of knowledge transformation and exploitation. Jansen et al. ( 2005 ) operationalized the construct with all four sub-dimensions and tested for antecedents of coordination, systems, and socialization capabilities. Lichtenthaler ( 2009 ) followed Cohen and Levinthal's guidance of three dimensions, employing exploratory, transformative, and exploitative learning processes with measurement items borrowed from previous studies. In sum, the LCAP construct has been operationalized in multiple ways with varying dimensions and scales (Lane et al., 2006 ). In this study we are focused on the holistic meaning of LCAP and not on the distinct dimensions or processes of it. Therefore, we employ a unidimensional factor for LCAP that we believe captures Cohen and Levinthal's ( 1989 , 1990 ) conceptualization.

Our hypotheses in this study are in alignment with: (a) the learning disciplines of Senge ( 1990 ) that emphasize the need for SHV and open dialogs that are oriented to finding truth; (b) a set of learning-oriented activities called “teaming” which encourage group members to collaborate and to engage in honest and reflective conversations (Edmondson, 2012 ); and (c) a learning environment called “ba” which supports learning creation and an ongoing re-evaluation of existing premises (Nonaka et al., 2000 ).

Open-mindedness and learning capacity

Dewey ( 1933 ) stated that OPM (which he called “reflection”) refers to assessing the grounds or justification of one's beliefs. Similarly, more recent researchers argue that OPM is critical for examining individuals' mental models, which are deeply held beliefs or conceptions that may confine them to familiar patterns of thinking and acting (Senge, 1990 ; Day and Nedungadi, 1994 ; Sinkula et al., 1997 ). If these deeply held beliefs and assumptions are not questioned and altered, groups' effectiveness will be diminished (Day, 1994 ; Sinkula, 1994 ). When group members have differences in their interpretation of task-related issues, they experience greater learning and gain a more accurate assessment of situations (Fiol, 1994 ). Argyris and Schön ( 1978 ) maintain that a key aspect of OPM is its attention to detecting and correcting errors, which they consider essential to organizational learning.

Examination of deeply held convictions and consideration of alternative perspectives often involve a relatively high level of disagreement (Janis, 1972 ; Jehn, 1995 ; Slater and Narver, 1995 ). Disagreement that remains task-oriented is referred to as both “cognitive conflict” and “task conflict” and has been found to result in higher-quality decisions (Amason and Schweiger, 1994 ; Amason, 1996 ). In their research on corporate board decision-making, Forbes and Milliken ( 1999 ) argued that cognitive conflict fosters an environment that is characterized by a task-oriented focus and a tolerance of multiple viewpoints and opinions; thus, it promotes critical discussions and helps to prevent groupthink. Because cognitive conflict remains task-oriented, it is not to be confused with affective (or relationship) conflict, which can become personal and damage the group's commitment and ability to work together (Amason, 1996 ). Researchers have suggested techniques and tools to help leaders and group members foster and maintain OPM so that conflicts remain task-oriented and not personal. Among those are: (a) developing and expressing one's own view; (b) questioning and understanding other views; (c) integrating and creating solutions; and (d) agreeing to and implementing solutions (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Another suggestion is to assign a member (or members) to serve as a devil's advocate, questioning group members' underlying assumptions and opinions (Amason, 1996 ).

Cognitive (or task) conflict has typically been studied as an antecedent to higher quality decisions rather than to learning capacity. One empirical study found that “openness” led to organizational learning (Hult et al., 2000 ) but the openness construct had two dimensions, participativeness and reflectiveness, whereas only the latter resembles the OPM construct employed in this study. As noted previously, OPM has been used in empirical studies more as a first-order factor of learning orientation than as a stand-alone construct. In a study that did examine it as a stand-alone factor, OPM was found to have a significant and positive effect on product innovation (Calisir et al., 2013 ); the study did not employ a learning construct. Although a significant body of literature has discussed the linkage between OPM and learning, we have been unable to find a study that empirically tests that relationship in group decision-making settings.

Hypothesis 1. Open-mindedness will have a positive effect on learning capacity .

Shared vision as a moderator

SHV has been described as the embodiment of a group's collective goals and aspirations (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998 ) as well as its shared sense of purpose and operating values (Senge, 1990 ). SHV is considered essential for proactive learning because it fosters commitment, energy and purpose among group members (Tobin, 1993 ; Day, 1994 ). Similarly, Senge ( 1990 ) states that learning cannot occur without SHV since it provides the “pull” toward goals that helps to overcome forces of inertia.

SHV helps to motivate teams (Van den Bossche et al., 2006 ); to promote sharing of perspectives and knowledge (Bunderson and Reagans, 2010 ); to promote positive feelings and commitment among members (Boyatzis, 2008 ); to foster greater organizational engagement (Mahon et al., 2014 ); and to legitimize the acquisition and assessment of new knowledge (Lyles and Salk, 1996 ). When team members share common or cooperative goals they are open to problem-solving approaches that help them learn from mistakes (Tjosvold et al., 2004 ); in contrast, competitive goals have been found to correlate negatively with collective problem-solving approaches and to undermine group learning. Tsai and Ghoshal ( 1998 ) state that SHV and collective goals are reflections of the cognitive dimension of social capital.

Strong interpersonal cohesiveness of group members, on the other hand, has been associated with groupthink (Mullen et al., 1994 ), which has been described as a dysfunctional mode of decision making that can occur when there is a lack of independent critical thinking and when there is a strong desire to have unanimity among members (Janis, 1972 , 1983 ). However, while cohesiveness may be a determinant of groupthink, it is not sufficient (Janis, 1972 ). Cohesiveness must be accompanied by directive leadership and a lack of cognitive conflict to foster groupthink; when cognitive conflict is present it fosters an environment with a task-oriented focus and a tolerance of multiple viewpoints and opinions (Janis, 1983 ; Bernthal and Insko, 1993 ). Thus, a distinction has been made between a type of cohesiveness that is task-oriented and a type that is focused on interpersonal attraction, with only the latter being linked to groupthink (Hogg, 1993 ). This view was supported in a quantitative study by Mullen et al. ( 1994 ): interpersonal attraction contributed to groupthink and poor decision quality, whereas commitment to task tended to ward it off. Researchers also have studied the possible relationship between conformity and groupthink, and particularly when there is a strong “compliance” aspect to conformity. Compliance refers to situations where group members are in agreement publicly but are not in agreement privately; this can occur when members suppress their private doubts about the group decision for reasons such as fear of recrimination if they were to dissent (McCauley, 1989 ).

Our argument in the current study is that SHV is about collective purpose, goals and tasks that increase the effect of OPM on learning capacity. In this study, SHV is not driven by a desire to be unanimous due to either strong interpersonal attraction or compliance motives that have been associated with groupthink. Thus, it seems logical that SHV would provide the beneficial effect of keeping open-minded dialogs on a collective learning track that supports the group's goals.

Hypothesis 2. Shared vision will strengthen the positive effect of open-mindedness on learning capacity .

Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows the hypothesized model, with SHV moderating the effect of OPM on learning capacity.

Hypothesized model .

Data collection, screening and sample

Empirical data to test the hypothesized relationships were obtained by an electronic survey. Emails soliciting participation were sent to 650 colleges and universities, all of which had participated in the 2009 endowment survey by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and Commonfund ( 2009–2010 ), or in previous annual surveys sponsored solely by NACUBO. Non-members of NACUBO may purchase a version of the 2009 study at http://www.nacubo.org/Products/Online_Research_Products/2009_NACUBO_Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments.html . Emails were addressed to financial officers requesting survey participation by a “key informant”: someone who had regularly attended investment committee meetings for at least several years and was very familiar with the committee's composition, responsibilities, nature of discussions, and decision-making practices. The solicitation email suggested that either the university financial officer most involved with the endowment or the investment committee chair would be an ideal respondent. The Institutional Review Board at the author's institution approved the Informed Consent and ethical conduct of the study, and all protocols governing the use of human subjects were followed. After the initial email of solicitation in September 2010, three reminders were e-mailed over the subsequent 3–4 weeks. Since the questions in the survey related to a period that ended more than a year earlier (June 30, 2009), we were not concerned with slight differences in survey response dates.

A total of 191 colleges/universities responded to the survey; the usable number was reduced to 168, or 25.8%, after eliminating nine cases due to incomplete surveys, three outliers, and 11 institutions for which certain objective data were not available from NACUBO studies. The three outliers had Cook's Distance values greater than 1.0, the threshold suggested as being problematic by Tabachnick and Fidell ( 2007 , p. 75). To determine if the sample was representative of the 650 colleges with five-year performance data in the 2009 NACUBO–Commonfund survey, we conducted an independent samples t -test of the means of the five-year annualized performance returns. No significant difference was observed between the means ( t = −0.656; df = 815; p = 0.512). The mean return from the NACUBO–Commonfund study was 2.70%, s = 2.55%, while the mean of this sample was 2.56%; s = 2.10%.

All but four respondents were finance, foundation, or investment officers at their colleges or universities; two were outsourced chief investment officers and two were investment committee members. On average, respondents had served 11 years in an endowment-related role with the college/university. Respondents were from both public (39%) and private (61%) institutions and the size of endowments spanned all six categories in the annual NACUBO–Commonfund study, from less than $25 million to greater than $1 billion. The average endowment size of survey participants as of fiscal year-end 2009 was $315 million, compared to $306 million in the 2009 NACUBO–Commonfund study.

The investment committees in our sample play important roles in key decisions concerning the management of the endowment portfolio. Approximately two-thirds of respondents indicated that the committee makes final decisions about hiring/firing managers and consultants, as well as policy asset allocations.

Measurement

The full questionnaire included more than 70 items including those relating to factors for the structural model in this study as well as other data about governance issues, staffing, performance and asset allocation. Certain factors that are not included in this study were used in a previous paper about group factors leading to diversified investment portfolios and superior financial performance (Lord, 2014b ); information about some of those other factors is included later in this paper in the section called Other Findings. For our model in the current study, we used the items for the latent factors of OPM, SHV and learning capacity. For control variables we used staff size and committee meeting frequency as they were said to relate to learning and performance in a qualitative study of endowments (Lord, 2014a ).

Independent and interaction variables

The scale items for all latent factors employed a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Very Strongly Disagree to Very Strongly Agree; they are provided in the appendix. Items for the independent variable (OPM) and the interaction moderator (shared vision) were adopted from existing scales (Sinkula et al., 1997 ; Calantone et al., 2002 ). An example of the items in the OPM construct was, “The committee was not afraid to reflect critically on investment-related assumptions it made,” and a sample item from the SHV construct was, “Our committee was in agreement about the endowment's purpose.”

Dependent variable

The LCAP scale was developed and adapted from research in the field of absorptive capacity: Jaworski and Kohli ( 1993 ); Zahra and George ( 2002 ); Jansen et al. ( 2005 ), and Szulanski ( 1996 ). Items included: “The committee collected in-depth information that was relevant to our investment decisions,” and “The committee knew how to implement new investment knowledge.”

Factor analysis

Sampling adequacy is excellent with a reading of 0.926 for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling. Bartlett's test of Sphericity is significant at the 0.000 level, indicating that there are correlations in the data set that are appropriate for factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted simultaneously with all the items for the latent factors using principal axis factoring with Promax rotation. The purpose of EFA was to determine if the observed variables loaded together as expected, were adequately correlated, and met the criteria of reliability and validity. Three latent factors were clearly observed with sufficient item loadings on each and with minimal cross-loadings. The EFA included the eigenvalues of 11.213 for learning capacity, 2.346 for OPM and 1.348 for shared vision. We assessed scale reliability for each latent factor with Cronbach's alpha, a measure of internal consistency or the closeness of the items for each factor. The Cronbach's alpha is high for all three factors: OPM (0.871), SHV (0.904), and LCAP (0.939), indicating high internal consistency.

EFA was followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for more rigorous testing and validation of the factor structure. We computed composite reliability (CR) scores for each factor, which were above the minimum threshold of 0.700. CR was 0.860 for OPM, 0.919 for shared vision, and 0.939 for learning capacity. Convergent validity was tested by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE); all factors had an AVE above the recommended threshold of 0.500 (Kline, 2011 ). Next, we tested discriminant validity by reviewing the maximum shared variance (MSV) and the average shared variance (ASV) for each factor and confirmed that they were less than the AVE for each factor. Discriminant validity was also confirmed in that the square root of the AVE was greater than the inter-factor correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ). See Table ​ Table1 1 for details on these measures; square root of the AVE is on the diagonal.

Convergent and discriminant validity and reliability .

The goodness of fit statistics for the measurement model are shown in Table ​ Table2 2 along with the “ideal thresholds” outlined by Hu and Bentler ( 1999 ). Model fit is acceptable in that all ideal thresholds are met except for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) which is extremely close at 0.061; other research (Steiger, 2007 ) stipulates an upper RMSEA limit of 0.07 for acceptable fit.

Fit statistics for measurement model .

Because items for our study's three latent factors were collected via the same instrument at the same time, it was prudent to conduct a common method bias test. We used the common latent factor (CLF) method advocated by MacKenzie and Podsakoff ( 2012 ) when no theoretically driven marker variable is collected. We compared the standardized regression weights before and after adding the CLF and found that the differences were all less than 0.200, thus indicating that the model does not suffer from common method bias.

Hypotheses were tested using covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM) with IBM's AMOS program. Hypothesis 1 is supported in that the standardized regression weight from OPM to LCAP is positive and significant at the 0.001 level. The model with standardized regression weights is shown in Figure ​ Figure2 2 .

Structural model results .

Hypothesis 2 is also supported in that SHV strengthens the positive effect of OPM on learning capacity. This can be shown in Figure ​ Figure3. 3 . When SHV is high, the slope of the relationship between OPM and LCAP is steeper; and when SHV is low, the line is flatter. The standardized regression weight between the interaction variable (OPM X SHV) and the dependent variable (LCAP) is positive and significant at the 0.001 level. In sum, SHV moderates the effect of OPM on LCAP by strengthening the positive relationship.

Interaction effect .

Model fit is excellent as shown in Table ​ Table3 3 along with the “ideal thresholds” outlined by Hu and Bentler ( 1999 ). All thresholds are met. R-squared is also excellent at 73.4%; this reveals how much of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictors.

Fit statistics for structural model .

Other findings

Our survey also collected data on the degree of diverse investment expertise among committee members; this refers to the breath of investment expertise across various asset classes (such as domestic equities, international equities, fixed income, real estate, hedge funds and private equity). In the previous study (Lord, 2014b ), diverse investment expertise was found to contribute both to knowledge acquisition and to knowledge implementation. This finding was in alignment with theory by Cohen and Levinthal ( 1989 , 1990 ) that prior experience is a key determinant of absorptive (or learning) capacity. For this paper we employ one item representing diverse investment expertise and divide the respondents into two roughly equal groups. Group 1 consists of the 88 respondents who answered either “very strongly agree” or “strongly agree” to the following statement: “Our committee over the five-year period always included expertise across a broad variety of asset classes.” Group 2 consists of 80 respondents who answered either very strongly disagree, strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral, or somewhat agree. In Table ​ Table4 4 we can see the differences in the mean scores between the two groups for shared vision, OPM and learning capacity.

Differences in groups based on levels of diverse investment expertise .

Using the independent samples t -test, there was a significant difference in the mean scores for the two groups across all three factors in the study; significance was at 0.001 for each factor and degrees of freedom were 166. The following t values were reported for each variable: shared vision, 4.273; OPM, 6.654; and learning capacity, 7.880. In sum, committees that had more diversified investment expertise across asset classes had higher levels of shared vision, OPM and LCAP than committees with less diversified expertise across asset classes. Therefore, committees wanting to increase their levels of shared vision, OPM and LCAP may want to consider diversifying the types of expertise on the committee. In the current research, the expertise that was examined all related to the broad realm of investments but it included variety of expertise within that realm.

In addition, our survey collected data on the degree of portfolio diversification across different asset classes, as discussed in a previous study (Lord, 2014b ). By dividing our sample into two halves—one with the most diversified portfolios and the other with the least diversified portfolios—we found that the halves differ significantly with regards to the three variables in this study. For OPM and learning capacity, differences in the mean responses between more diversified portfolios and less diversified portfolios were significant at the 0.001 level. And for shared vision, the difference between more and less diversified portfolios was significant at the 0.01 level. In sum, more diversified investment portfolios occurred in committee environments of higher shared vision, OPM and learning capacity. In the previous paper (Lord, 2014b ), portfolios with greater diversification among asset classes had higher risk-adjusted returns relative to their peers of similar size over a five-year period.

The findings in this study provide strong support to learning theorists' belief that OPM (also referred to as critical assessment, authentic inquiry or reflection) is a key determinant of learning capacity. In addition, the study is novel in finding that SHV has a positive and significant effect on the relationship between OPM and learning capacity. It is important to keep in mind that OPM in this study has a greater impact on LCAP than does shared vision. The co-existence of SHV and OPM in the model's configuration produces a greater effect on LCAP than OPM alone. In our view, that's because SHV not only provides direction and motivation for the group's efforts but also because its moderating effect is on an already-strong learning environment. If, as mentioned previously, closed-mindedness were hypothesized to reduce learning capacity, SHV could be expected to augment that effect. Therefore, consideration must be given to the context or environment in which SHV exists. In extreme situations, SHV could be used in studies with horrific results. Consider a model where “Hatred of Jews” contributed to “Deaths at Auschwitz.” It would seem logical to assume that “shared vision” among Hitler and his cronies would augment the relationship between “Hatred of Jews” and “Deaths at Auschwitz.” Happily, SHV in the current study co-exists with an independent and a dependent variable that are dramatically more positive.

Another important consideration is that SHV should not connote rigidity of the group's beliefs or goals. Especially in an environment with strong OPM and learning capacity, group members could be expected to re-examine their existing beliefs and goals, and to be willing to alter them based on greater understanding of the context in which they operate. OPM would essentially dictate an ongoing assessment of the group's purpose and goals to determine whether they are still justified.

This study also contributes to the literature on group conflict in that previous research focused on the benefits of task conflict to decision quality (Jehn, 1995 ; Amason, 1996 ) while this study links task conflict (as represented by OPM) to learning capacity. We believe it is quite likely that OPM (due to its similarities to task conflict) could also be found to have a positive effect on decision quality. One could easily argue that there is a strong correlation between those two outcomes. One might hypothesize, for example, that LCAP is an antecedent to decision quality. Our findings also support research positing that task conflict is very different from relationship (or affective) conflict in that the former is focused on the content of the task while the latter is focused on personal factors (Todorova et al., 2014 ; Weingart et al., 2014 ). Relationship or affective conflict can include interpersonal criticism, individual bragging, blaming, and defensiveness—all behaviors that can inhibit group learning; these types of behavior may occur in competitive environments where the “we” is superseded by the “me.” In contrast, cognitive or task conflict is oriented toward the substance of the work and helps to reveal additional insights and perspectives that contribute to group learning. In our view, group conflict that remains task oriented could be more accurately and positively framed as “productive disagreement” rather than “task conflict.”

In a recent addition to research on task conflict, Todorova et al. ( 2014 ) differentiate between mild and intense task conflict expression . Mild task conflict expression occurs when team members debate about differing ideas or opinions, and express different viewpoints about work issues. On the other hand, intense task conflict expression occurs when members criticize each other's viewpoints, clash about objectives/goals, and argue about desired output. While it is possible for both of these expressions of task conflict to remain focused on tasks, only mild task conflict expression had a significant, positive effect on information acquisition in their study. Intense task conflict expression, on the other hand, had a significant negative effect on information acquisition. The authors suggest that frequent, intense task conflict expressions can interfere with potential informational benefits since the intensity of arguments may limit information sharing and processing. We suggest that the OPM construct in our study is very similar to mild task conflict expression, and that it supports the findings of Todorova et al. ( 2014 ) that mild task conflict expression contributes significantly to learning. We concur that intense task conflict expression starts to resemble relationship conflict, which tends to detract from learning.

As for concerns about conformity, we contend that a group climate of OPM would be negatively related to compliance behaviors that have been associated with groupthink. In addition, SHV represents group members' genuine belief that they are working collaboratively toward a common purpose whereas conformity often represents situations where group members publicly “act” as though they are in agreement when, instead, they privately disagree. When beliefs are genuine they are internalized, whereas when expressions of belief are not genuine they may indicate compliance (McCauley, 1989 ).

While we are open to the view that SHV falls within the spectrum of cohesiveness, we would argue that the very strong influence of OPM in this study severely limits the possibility of the type of intense interpersonal cohesiveness that is associated with groupthink. In our view, groupthink is simply not compatible with either OPM or learning capacity. If group members are open-minded they are not consensus seeking for the sake of seeking consensus. In addition, if they are open-minded they want to seek new external information, to assimilate it and to apply it rather than conform to the stated group view without engaging in learning behaviors. There may be some degree of interpersonal cohesiveness built through the collective work of developing shared vision, and it could be argued that the cohesiveness around SHV may become so strong that it veers toward a group desire to be unanimous in thoughts and perspectives. In response, we offer a counterargument from this study's results that the concurrent presence of OPM–with its focus on critical assessment–will ward off that occurrence, just as we argue that SHV provides a curb on dialogs that may start out as open-minded but become so emotionally intense that they destroy the conditions and capacity for learning. In a sense, SHV and OPM may serve to regulate each other in healthy ways.

Limitations and future directions

Our survey was conducted of “key informants” of college and university endowments, whereas multiple responses of members from each endowment committee likely would have been more representative. In addition, given that all respondents were associated with university endowments, the study may not be generalizable to other decision-making committees or boards.

While the methodology in this study employs a one-directional causal model, with OPM and the interaction variable (OPM combined with shared vision) leading to learning capacity, we believe it is more appropriate to consider the variables as reciprocal in that relationships can go in both directions. For example, it seems logical to believe that greater LCAP could lead to greater OPM, in that more implementations of learning would provide more instances for critical reflection. In addition, more OPM and the greater understanding associated with it could augment the group's SHV about its purpose and goals. And, as noted previously, we believe that OPM could help the group refine or even adopt a new SHV if it can no longer justify the old one. In short, the variables appear to be contemporaneously intertwined.

Another possible limitation is that we did not test or control for demographic factors such as ethnicity or gender; such inclusion could have enlightened our understanding of generalizability. Also, our construct for LCAP is unidimensional whereas a multi-dimensional construct could have provided more insights regarding how OPM and the interaction variable would influence each of the learning dimensions.

In addition, the study could have provided further insights if it had included a construct for interpersonal cohesiveness; this would have permitted us to contrast the influence of SHV vs. the influence of strong interpersonal cohesiveness on the relationship between OPM and learning capacity. The personality trait called “agreeableness” might be a starting place in considering a measure.

Future research could provide further insights into conditions for greater LCAP by addressing some of the limitations noted above as well as considering factors such as leadership styles and other facets of a learning environment.

We believe this study provides new insights about group dynamics that affect collective learning. By employing SHV as a moderator of the effect of OPM on group learning capacity, the study makes an innovative contribution to other research that encompasses both SHV and OPM. Authors Amason and Sapienza ( 1997 ) discuss the need for both openness and mutuality in effective team decision-making. They define mutuality as the degree to which team members share goals and responsibilities, and openness as the team's “propensity to tolerate, encourage, and engage in open, frank expression of views.” Thus, “mutuality” is related to “shared vision,” and “openness” is related to “OPM.” Researchers stress the importance of getting the balance right (Jehn, 1995 ; Amason and Sapienza, 1997 ). If there is too much mutuality and not enough cognitive conflict (or OPM), group members may become complacent or agree too readily such that LCAP and decision quality suffer. However, if the openness becomes so heated that it resembles intense task conflict expression, the effects can include confusion, personal conflict and even closed-mindedness, all of which would detract from learning.

In conclusion, we would argue that there's some truth to Oscar Wilde's quote: “Everything in moderation, including moderation.” A proper balance between OPM and SHV appears to offer true benefits such as greater learning capacity. On the other hand, there also may be truth to another quote by Wilde: “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.” With regards to the latter, excess LCAP may contribute to success. No doubt, one must choose his/her excesses carefully.

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Appendix: constructs, definitions and items

Open-mindedness (opm).

The committee's critical assessment of its assumptions, beliefs and prior actions, as well as its openness to new ideas.

• Committee members routinely judged the quality of the decisions they made.
• The committee was not afraid to reflect critically on investment-related assumptions it made.
• Committee members realized that the way we perceive the markets must be continually questioned.
• Committee members routinely made critical assessments of the investment approach.

Shared vision (SHV)

A common mental model for the direction of the organization.

• Our committee was in agreement about the endowment's purpose.
• Committee members were committed to the goals for the endowment.
• There was agreement among committee members about the vision for the endowment.
• Committee members viewed themselves as partners in our efforts for the endowment.

Learning capacity (LCAP)

The committee's ability to acquire, assimilate and implement knowledge successfully.

• The committee collected in-depth information that was relevant to our investment decisions.
• The committee quickly recognized shifts in the financial markets.
• The committee quickly analyzed and interpreted changing market conditions.
• The committee quickly determined the usefulness of new investment-related knowledge to existing knowledge.
• The committee was capable of assessing potential investment opportunities based on its existing knowledge.
• The committee knew how to implement new investment knowledge.
• The committee had routines in place that it believed are essential for superior long-term performance.
• The committee had policies in place that it believed are essential for superior long-term performance.
• The committee knew how to capitalize on its investment knowledge.
• Amason A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams . Acad. Manage. J . 39 , 123–148 10.2307/256633 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amason A. C., Sapienza H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict . J. Manage . 23 , 495–516 10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90045-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amason A. C., Schweiger D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance . Int. J. Confl. Manage . 5 , 239–253 10.1108/eb022745 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Argyris C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making . Adm. Sci. Q . 21 , 363–375. 10.2307/2391848 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Argyris C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd Edn . Madden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Argyris C., Schön D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barney J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage . J. Manage . 17 , 99–120. 10.1177/014920639101700108 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassi L. (1999). Harnessing the power of intellectual capital , in The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000 , eds Cortada J., Woods J. (Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann; ), 422–431. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernthal P., Insko C. (1993). Cohesiveness without groupthink: the interactive effects of social and task cohesion . Group Organ. Manage . 18 , 66–87 10.1177/1059601193181005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyatzis R. E. (2008). Leadership development from a complexity perspective . Consult. Psychol. J . 60 , 298–313 10.1037/1065-9293.60.4.298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown J. R., Dimmock S. G., Kang J.-K., Weisbenner S. (2010). Why I Lost My Secretary: The Effect of Endowment Shocks on University Operations . NBER Working Paper No. 15861. Available online at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15861 10.14264/uql.2013.10 [ CrossRef ]
• Bunderson J. S., Reagans R. E. (2010). Power, status, and learning in organizations . Organ. Sci . 22 , 1182–1194 10.1287/orsc.1100.0590 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calantone R. J., Cavusgil S. T., Zhao Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance . Ind. Mark. Manage . 31 , 515–524 10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calisir F., Gumussoy C. A., Guzelsoy E. (2013). Impacts of learning orientation on product innovation performance . Learn. Organ . 20 , 176–194 10.1108/09696471311328442 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D . Econ. J . 99 , 569–596 10.2307/2233763 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation . Adm. Sci. Q . 35 , 128–152 10.2307/2393553 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations . J. Mark . 58 , 37–52 10.2307/1251915 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day G. S., Nedungadi P. (1994). Managerial representations of competitive advantage . J. Mark . 58 , 31–44. 10.2307/1252267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process . Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: a group-level perspective . Organ. Sci . 13 , 128–146 10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. C. (2012). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiol C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations . Organ. Sci . 5 , 403–420 10.1287/orsc.5.3.403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiol C. M., Lyles M. A. (1985). Organizational learning . Acad. Manage. Rev . 10 , 803–813. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forbes D. P., Milliken F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups . Acad. Manage. Rev . 24 , 489–505. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error . J. Mark. Res . 18 , 39–50 10.2307/3151312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garvin D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization . Harv. Bus. Rev . 71 , 78–91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant R. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration . Organ. Sci . 7 , 375–387 10.1287/orsc.7.4.375 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: a critical review and some new directions . Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol . 4 , 85–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives . Struct. Equ. Modeling 6 , 1–55 10.1080/10705519909540118 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures . Organ. Sci . 2 , 88–115 10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hult G. T. M., Hurley R. F., Giunipero L. C., Nichols E. L. (2000). Organizational learning in global purchasing: a model and test of internal users and corporate buyers . Decis. Sci . 31 , 293–325 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2000.tb01625.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Janis I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink . Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janis I. L. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes . Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jansen J. P., Van Den Bosch F. A. J., Volberda H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity . Acad. Manage. J . 48 , 999–1015 10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573106 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaworski B. J., Kohli A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences . J. Mark . 57 , 53–70 10.2307/1251854 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict . Adm. Sci. Q . 40 , 256–282 10.2307/2393638 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline R. B. (2011). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling . New York, NY: Guilford Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kogut B., Zander U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning . Organ. Sci . 7 , 502–518 10.1287/orsc.7.5.502 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolb D. (1984). Experiential Learning . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane P., Koka B. R., Pathak S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct . Acad. Manage. Rev . 31 , 833–863 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527456 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitt B., March J. G. (1988). Organizational learning . Annu. Rev. Sociol . 14 , 319–340 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichtenthaler U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes . Acad. Manage. J . 52 , 822–846 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670902 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord M. (2014a). Smaller university endowments: team characteristics, portfolio composition and performance . Qual. Res. Financ. Mark . 6 , 4–32 10.1108/QRFM-07-2012-0021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord M. (2014b). University endowment committees: how a learning orientation and knowledge factors contribute to portfolio diversification and performance . Eur. J. Finan . 10.1080/1351847X.2013.879536 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyles M. A., Salk J. E. (1996). Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures: an empirical examination in the Hungarian context . J. Int. Bus. Stud . 27 , 877–903 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490155 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies . J. Retailing 88 , 542–555 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahon E. G., Taylor S. N., Boyatzis R. E. (2014). Antecedents of organizational engagement: Exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a moderator . Front. Psychol . 5 : 1322 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01322 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• March J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning . Organ. Sci . 2 , 71–87 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazutis D., Slawinski N. (2008). Leading organizational learning through authentic dialogue . Manage. Learn . 39 , 437–456 10.1177/1350507608093713 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCauley C. (1989). The nature of social influence in groupthink: compliance and internalization . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol . 57 , 250–260 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.250 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezirow J. (1990). Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood . San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullen B., Anthony T., Salas E., Driskell J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making, an integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis . Small Group Res . 25 , 189–204 10.1177/1046496494252003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and Commonfund. (2009–2010). NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments . Available online at: http://www.nacubo.org/Products/Online_Research_Products/2009_NACUBO_Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments.html
• Nonaka I., Toyama R., Konno N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation . Long Range Plann . 33 , 5–34 10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Senge P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization . New York, NY: Doubleday. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinkula J. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning . J. Mark . 58 , 35–45. 10.2307/1252249 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinkula J. M., Baker W. E., Noordewier T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior . J. Acad. Mark. Sci . 25 , 305–318 10.1177/0092070397254003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater S. F., Narver J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization . J. Mark . 59 , 63–74 10.2307/1252120 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiger J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling . Pers. Individ. Dif . 42 , 893–898 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szulanski G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm . Strateg. Manage. J . 17 , 27–43 10.1002/smj.4250171105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th Edn . Boston, MA: Pearson Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teece D. J., Pisano G. P., Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management . Strateg. Manage. J . 18 , 509–533. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tippins M. J., Sohi R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: is org learning a missing link? Strateg. Manage. J . 24 , 745–761 10.1002/smj.337 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tjosvold D., Wong A. S. H., Chen N. Y. F. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav . 1 , 545–568 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tjosvold D., Yu Z., Hui C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: the contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving . J. Manage. Stud . 41 , 1223–1245 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00473.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobin D. R. (1993). Re-Educating the Corporation: Foundations for the Learning Organization . Essex Junction, VT: Oliver Wright. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todorova G., Bear J. B., Weingart L. R. (2014). Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction . J. Appl. Psychol . 99 , 451. 10.1037/a0035134 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsai W., Ghoshal S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks . Acad. Manage. Rev . 41 , 464–476 10.2307/257085 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Bossche P., Gijselaers W., Segers M., Kirschner P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments . Small Group Res . 37 , 490–521 10.1177/1046496406292938 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Wijk R., Van Den Bosch F. A. J., Volberda H. W. (2011). Absorptive capacity: taking stock of its progress and prospects , in Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, 2nd Edn ., eds Easterby-Smith M., Lyles M. A. (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; ), 273–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• Volberda H. W., Foss N. J., Lyles M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its potential in the organizational field . Organ. Sci . 21 , 931–951 10.1287/orsc.1090.0503 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weingart L., Behfar K., Bendersky C., Todorova G., Jehn K. (2014). The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression . Acad. Manage. Rev . 10.5465/amr.2013.0124 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahra S., George G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension . Acad. Manage. Rev . 27 , 185–203 10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Problem-Solving Mindset: How to Achieve It (15 Ways)

One of the most valuable skills you can have in life is a problem-solving mindset. It means that you see challenges as opportunities to learn and grow, rather than obstacles to avoid or complain about. A problem-solving mindset helps you overcome difficulties, achieve your goals, and constantly improve yourself. By developing a problem-solving mindset, you can become more confident, creative, and resilient in any situation.A well-defined problem paves the way for targeted, effective solutions. Resist the urge to jump straight into fixing things. Invest the time upfront to truly understand what needs to be solved. Starting with the end in mind will make the path to resolution that much smoother.

Sanju Pradeepa

* This Post may contain affiliate Links, and we receive an affiliate commission for any purchases made by you using such links. *

Ever feel like you’re stuck in a rut with no way out? We’ve all been there. The problems life throws at us can seem insurmountable. But the truth is, you have everything you need to overcome any challenge already within you. It’s called a problem-solving mindset. Developing the ability to see problems as puzzles to solve rather than obstacles to overcome is a game changer. With the right mindset, you can achieve amazing things.

In this article, we’ll explore what having a problem-solving mindset really means and how you can cultivate one for yourself. You’ll learn proven techniques to shift your perspective, expand your creativity, and find innovative solutions to your biggest problems. We’ll look at examples of people who have used a problem-solving mindset to accomplish extraordinary feats. By the end, you’ll have the tools and inspiration to transform how you think about and approach problems in your own life.

Table of Contents

What is a problem-solving mindset.

A problem solving mindset is all about approaching challenges in a solution-focused way. Rather than feeling defeated by obstacles, you look at them as puzzles to solve. Developing this mindset takes practice, but the rewards of increased resilience, creativity and confidence make it worth the effort.

• Identify problems, not excuses. Rather than blaming external factors, look for the issues within your control. Ask yourself, “What’s really going on here and what can I do about it?”
• Focus on solutions, not problems. Once you’ve pinpointed the issue, brainstorm options to fix it. Don’t get stuck in a negative loop. Shift your mindset to answer the question, “What are some possible solutions?”
• Look for opportunities, not obstacles. Reframe the way you view problems. See them as chances to improve and learn, rather than roadblocks stopping your progress. Ask, “What’s the opportunity or lesson here?”
• Start small and build up. Don’t feel overwhelmed by big challenges. Break them into manageable steps and celebrate small wins along the way. Solving little problems builds your confidence to tackle bigger issues.

Be patient with yourself and maintain an open and curious attitude . With regular practice, you’ll get better at seeing the solutions, rather than the obstacles. You’ll become more flexible and innovative in your thinking. And you’ll discover that you have the ability to solve problems you once thought insurmountable. That’s the power of a problem-solving mindset.

Why Developing a Problem Solving Mindset Is Important

Developing a problem-solving mindset is crucial these days. Why? Because life throws curveballs at us constantly and the only way to overcome them is through creative solutions.

Having a problem-solving mindset means you view challenges as opportunities rather than obstacles. You approach them with curiosity and optimism instead of dread. This allows you to see problems from new angles and come up with innovative solutions.

Some key characteristics of a problem-solving mindset include:

• Flexibility. You’re open to different perspectives and willing to consider alternative options.
• Creativity. You think outside the box and make unexpected connections between ideas.
• Persistence. You don’t give up easily in the face of difficulties or setbacks. You continue experimenting and adjusting your approach.
• Adaptability. You accept change and are able to quickly adjust your strategies or plans to suit new situations.
• Resourcefulness. You make the most of what you have access to and find ways to overcome limitations.

Developing a problem-solving mindset takes conscious effort and practice.

The Key Characteristics of Effective Problem Solvers

To become an effective problem solver, you need to develop certain characteristics and mindsets. Here are some of the key traits shared by great problem solvers:

1. Openness to New Ideas

Effective problem solvers have an open and curious mind. They seek out new ways of looking at problems and solutions. Rather than dismissing ideas that seem “out there,” they explore various options with an open mind.

2. Flexibility

Great problem solvers are flexible in their thinking. They can see problems from multiple perspectives and are willing to adapt their approach. If one solution isn’t working, they try another. They understand that there are many paths to solving a problem.

3. Persistence

Solving complex problems often requires persistence and determination. Effective problem solvers don’t give up easily. They continue exploring options and trying new solutions until they find one that works. They see setbacks as learning opportunities rather than failures.

Why Persistence is Important: 8 Benefits & 6 Ways to Develop

4. creativity.

Innovative problem solvers think outside the box . They make unexpected connections and come up with unconventional solutions. They utilize techniques like brainstorming, mind mapping, and lateral thinking to spark new ideas.

5. Analytical Thinking

While creativity is key, problem solvers also need to be able to evaluate solutions in a logical and analytical manner. They need to be able to determine the pros and cons, costs and benefits, and potential obstacles or issues with any solution. They rely on data, evidence, and objective reasoning to make decisions.

7 Types of Critical Thinking: A Guide to Analyzing Problems

How to cultivate a problem-solving mindset.

To cultivate a problem-solving mindset, you need to develop certain habits and ways of thinking. Here are some tips to get you started:

1. Look for Opportunities to Solve Problems

The more you practice problem solving, the better you’ll get at it. Look for opportunities in your daily life to solve small problems. This could be figuring out a better way to organize your tasks at work or coming up with a solution to traffic in your neighborhood. Start with small, low-risk problems and work your way up to more complex challenges.

2. Ask Good Questions

One of the most important skills in problem solving is asking good questions. Questions help you gain a deeper understanding of the issue and uncover new perspectives. Ask open-ended questions like:

• What’s the real problem here?
• What are the underlying causes?
• Who does this impact and how?
• What has been tried before? What worked and what didn’t?

3. Do Your Research

Don’t go into problem solving blind. Do some research to gather relevant facts and data about the situation. The more you know, the better equipped you’ll be to come up with innovative solutions. Talk to people with different viewpoints and life experiences to gain new insights.

4. Brainstorm Many Options

When you start thinking of solutions, don’t settle for the first idea that comes to mind. Brainstorm many options to open up possibilities. The more choices you have, the more likely you are to discover an unconventional solution that really fits the needs of the situation. Think outside the box!

5. Evaluate and Decide

Once you have a list of possible solutions, evaluate each option objectively based on criteria like cost, time, and effectiveness. Get input from others if needed. Then make a decision and take action. Even if it’s not the perfect solution, you can make changes as you go based on feedback and results.

6. Question your beliefs

The beliefs and assumptions you hold can influence how you perceive and solve problems. Ask yourself:

• What beliefs or stereotypes do I have about this situation or the people involved?
• Are these beliefs grounded in facts or just my personal experiences?
• How might my beliefs be limiting my thinking?

Challenging your beliefs helps you see the problem with fresh eyes and identify new solutions.

The Ultimate Guide of Overcoming Self-Limiting Beliefs

7. seek different perspectives.

Get input from people with different backgrounds, experiences, and thought processes than your own. Their unique perspectives can reveal new insights and spark innovative ideas. Some ways to gain new perspectives include:

• Discuss the problem with colleagues from different departments or areas of expertise.
• Interview customers or clients to understand their needs and priorities.
• Consult experts in unrelated fields for an outside-the-box opinion.
• Crowdsource solutions from people of diverse ages, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

8. Look beyond the obvious

We tend to focus on the most conspicuous or straightforward solutions, but the best option isn’t always obvious. Try these techniques to stimulate unconventional thinking:

• Restate the problem in new ways. A new phrasing can reveal alternative solutions.
• Remove constraints and imagine an ideal scenario. Then work backwards to find realistic options.
• Make unexpected associations between the problem and unrelated concepts or objects. Look for parallels and analogies in different domains.
• Play with hypothetical scenarios to find combinations you may not logically deduce. Some of the wildest ideas can lead to innovative solutions!

With an open and curious mindset, you can overcome assumptions, gain new insights, and find unconventional solutions to your most complex problems. The key is looking at the situation in new ways and exploring all possibilities.

Mindset is Everything: Reprogram Your Thinking for Success

9. practice active listening.

To become an effective problem solver, you need to practice active listening. This means paying close attention to what others are saying and asking follow-up questions to gain a deeper understanding of the issues.

Listen without judgment

When someone is explaining a problem to you, listen with an open mind. Avoid interrupting or criticizing them. Your role is to understand their perspective and concerns, not pass judgment. Nod, make eye contact, and give verbal affirmations like “I see” or “go on” to show you’re engaged.

Ask clarifying questions

If something is unclear or you need more details, ask questions. Say something like, “Can you explain that in more detail?” or “What specifically do you mean by that?” The more information you have about the problem, the better equipped you’ll be to solve it. Ask open-ended questions to encourage the other person to elaborate on their points.

Paraphrase and summarize

Repeat back parts of what the speaker said in your own words to confirm you understood them correctly. Say something like, “It sounds like the main issues are…” or “To summarize, the key points you’re making are…” This also shows the other person you were paying attention and care about addressing their actual concerns.

10. Withhold suggestions initially

When someone first presents you with a problem, avoid immediately suggesting solutions. Your first task is to understand the issue thoroughly. If you start proposing solutions too soon, it can seem like you’re not really listening and are just waiting for your turn to talk. Get clarification, summarize the issues, and ask any follow up questions needed before offering your input on how to solve the problem.

Developing the patience and discipline to actively listen takes practice. But by listening without judgment, asking clarifying questions, paraphrasing, and withholding suggestions initially, you’ll gain valuable insight into problems and be better equipped to solve them. Active listening is a skill that will serve you well in all areas of life.

11. Ask Lots of Questions

To solve problems effectively, you need to ask lots of questions. Questioning helps you gain a deeper understanding of the issue, uncover hidden factors, and open your mind to new solutions.

Asking “why” helps you determine the root cause of the problem. Keep asking “why” until you reach the underlying reason. For example, if sales numbers are down, ask why. The answer may be that you lost a key client. Ask why you lost the client. The answer could be poor customer service. Ask why the customer service was poor. And so on. Getting to the root cause is key to finding the right solution.

Challenge Assumptions

We all have implicit assumptions and biases that influence our thinking. Challenge any assumptions you have about the problem by asking questions like:

• What if the opposite is true?
• What are we missing or ignoring?
• What do we think is impossible but perhaps isn’t?

Questioning your assumptions opens you up to new perspectives and innovative solutions.

12. Consider Different Viewpoints

Try to see the problem from multiple angles by asking:

• How do others see this problem?
• What solutions might employees, customers, or experts suggest?
• What would someone from a different industry or background recommend?

Getting input from people with diverse experiences and ways of thinking will lead to better solutions.

13. Brainstorm New Possibilities

Once you have a good understanding of the root problem, start generating new solutions by asking open-ended questions like:

• What if anything were possible, what solutions come to mind?
• What are some wild and crazy ideas, even if implausible?
• What solutions have we not yet thought of?

Don’t judge or evaluate ideas at this stage. Just let the questions spark new creative solutions. The more questions you ask, the more solutions you’ll discover. With an inquisitive mindset, you’ll be well on your way to solving any problem.

14. Document what you find

As you research, keep notes on key details, facts, statistics, examples, and advice that stand out as most relevant or interesting. Look for common themes and threads across the different resources. Organize your notes by topic or theme to get a better sense of the big picture. Refer back to your notes to recall important points as you evaluate options and determine next steps.

Doing thorough research arms you with the knowledge and understanding to develop effective solutions. You’ll gain a deeper appreciation for the complexity of the problem and be able to make more informed choices. Research also exposes you to new ideas you may not have considered. While it requires an investment of time, research is a crucial step for achieving an optimal solution.

15. Start With the End in Mind: Define the Problem Clearly

To solve a problem effectively, you need to first define it clearly. Without a concrete understanding of the issue at hand, you’ll waste time and energy grappling with a vague, nebulous challenge.

Identify the root cause

Ask probing questions to determine the underlying reason for the problem. Get specific by figuring out who is affected, what’s not working, where the breakdown is happening, when it started, and why it’s an issue. Look beyond the symptoms to find the source. The solution lies in resolving the root cause, not just alleviating surface-level pain points.

Gather objective data

Rely on facts, not opinions or assumptions. Observe the situation directly and collect information from multiple sources. Get input from people with different perspectives. Hard data and evidence will give you an accurate, unbiased view of the problem.

Define constraints and priorities

Determine any restrictions around time, money, resources, or policies that could impact your solution. Also identify what’s most important to solve—you can’t fix everything at once. Focus on high-priority issues and leave lower-priority problems for another time.

Frame the problem statement

With a clear understanding of the root cause, supporting data, and constraints, you can craft a concise problem statement. This articulates the issue in 1 or 2 sentences and serves as a guiding vision for developing solutions. Refer back to your problem statement regularly to ensure you stay on track.

Final Thought

Developing a problem-solving mindset is within your reach if you commit to continuous learning, looking at challenges from new angles, and not being afraid to fail. Start small by picking one problem each day to solve in a creative way. Build up your confidence and skills over time through practice.

While it may feel uncomfortable at first, having an adaptable and solution-focused mindset will serve you well in all areas of life. You’ll be able to navigate obstacles and setbacks with more ease and grace. And who knows, you may even start to enjoy the problem-solving process and see problems as opportunities in disguise. The problem-solving mindset is a gift that keeps on giving. Now go out there, face your challenges head on, and solve away!

Solve It!: The Mindset and Tools of Smart Problem Solvers by  Dietmar Sternad

• Creative Problem Solving as Overcoming a Misunderstanding by Maria Bagassi  and  Laura Macchi * (Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy) ,
• Mindsets: A View From Two Eras by Carol S. Dweck 1  and  David S. Yeager 2 published in National Library of Medicine ( Perspect Psychol Sci.  Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 May 1. Published in final edited form as: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019 May; 14(3): 481–496. )

Call to Action

With regular practice, a problem solving mindset can become second nature. You’ll get better at seeing opportunities, asking the right questions, uncovering creative solutions, and taking action. And that will make you a highly valuable thinker in any organization or team.

Let’s boost your self-growth with Believe in Mind.

Interested in self-reflection tips, learning hacks, and knowing ways to calm down your mind? We offer you the best content which you have been looking for.

Follow Me on

You May Like Also

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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