Home Uncategorized 2 discussions due in 7 hours

Uncategorized

2 discussions due in 7 hours

Group Cohesion and Productivity

Watch the video, Got a Wicked Problem? First, Tell Me How You Make Toast.

Then, using the information and concepts from Chapter 5 of the course text:

Identify the point at which piggybacking began to occur within the problem-solving groups and explain its significance.
Explain why working in complete silence fostered group effectiveness in the groups shown.
Explain why the groups developed more effective instruction models for toast making than individuals.

Norms and Conformity

A common problem in organizational decision making is groupthink. Consider an example of decision making in your own organizational experience, or from recent history. After summarizing the situation, list the symptoms of groupthink as they occurred. Explain how you think they created a rigid or narrow decision making style that resulted in a poor choice for the group. Remember to cite sources including the course text and at least two other scholarly resources.

Required Resources

Text

Read the following chapters in

Group behavior in organizations

Chapter 5: Problem Solving
Chapter 6: Decision Making

Multimedia

Public Mind: “Groupthink” [Video file]. Retrieved from Films on Demand.

This video supports the Norms and Conformity discussion this week.
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

Wujec, T. (2013, June).

Got a wicked problem? First, tell me how you make toast (Links to an external site.)

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_got_a_wicked_problem_first_tell_me_how_you_make_toast

This video supports the Group Cohesion and Productivity discussion this week. This video has closed captioning and a transcript that can be accessed here: https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_got_a_wicked_problem_first_tell_me_how_you_make_toast/transcript (Links to an external site.)
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy

163

5Problem Solving

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Compare and contrast convergent and divergent thinking styles, and the types of problems typically associ-
ated with each.

• Outline the advantages and primary pitfalls of group problem solving.

• Explain the four stages of the group problem-solving process.

• Connect the seven steps of problem solving to the problem-solving cycle and outline the importance of each
step.

• Describe strategies for managing creativity in group problem solving.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 163 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. The process of solving complex problems is linear and finite. T/F
2. Production blocking refers to an individual’s tendency to deliberately slow the progress

of task-related tasks and activities. T/F
3. When it comes to complex problem solving, groups tend to outperform individuals—

even individuals with outstanding knowledge, skills, and abilities. T/F
4. Convergent and divergent thinking are opposite and incompatible cognitive problem-

solving styles. T/F
5. Creativity is a rare and unusual talent. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction
Over the past 12 months, a midsize nonprofit organization has noticed a steady month-
to-month decline in donations, which are their primary source of funding. Based on the
available financial information, the board of directors and administrators realize they
will either have to solve the problem or restructure their operations, which would include
decreasing the number of employees and scaling back their support efforts and events.

After holding several meetings about the ongoing decline, the board of directors and
administrators decide to establish a cross-functional team to analyze and solve the prob-
lem. They select team members from finance and marketing, as well as the directors of
annual giving, fund-raising, and volunteering. The members are chosen not only because
of the departments with which they are associated, but also because they have previously
worked together on other successful projects.

The team is tasked with finding a way to increase donations. While the problem seems
straightforward at first, the team soon realizes the problem itself can be interpreted in
different ways. For example, is this a problem of declining support for the cause? Or of
ineffective marketing strategies? Or of faulty outreach programs?

Marcus, the director of fund-raising, suggests they take the time to conceptualize and
define the problem before attempting to solve it. To aid the process, the team creates a
list of basic needs the problem represents. This list includes the larger goal of increasing
donations to previous levels but also includes questions such as why previous donors have
stopped contributing and how best to understand donor motivations. The team must also
consider several parameters that would impact potential solutions, including budget lim-
its, existing marketing contracts, and legal restrictions on how donations are sought.

After several discussions, the team members realize the underlying problem is a lack of
interest in their organization. Through research, they discover that donation levels to
other organizations that work on the same or similar causes has remained steady; their
organization is alone in experiencing a marked decline in donations.

With the problem more clearly framed, the team members feel they are ready to gener-
ate possible solutions. Marcus, who has naturally emerged as the team’s leader, proposes
a few solutions and makes sure to give the team ample time to thoroughly discuss each
option before presenting the next one. Marcus knows that if he presents too many ideas

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 164 8/19/16 9:35 AM

What Is Problem Solving?

too quickly, the team members won’t be able to thoughtfully process each idea, verbalize
their opinions, or think of new twists on the original idea.

Marcus thinks the team is highly engaged in the ideation process, and he is pleased that
most members regularly contribute ideas and effort. Gunnar, the finance manager, is the
exception. He keeps relatively quiet at each meeting and has only spoken once—when
asked whether he agreed with the team’s most recent suggestion for a solution. Marcus
wonders if Gunnar’s lukewarm participation reflects his lack of interest in the project, but
this seems unlikely, given Gunnar’s enthusiasm when the team was defining the problem
and gathering data. This leads Marcus to believe that Gunnar, who is the most junior-
ranking member of the team, might be concerned with how his ideas will be evaluated by
the team’s more senior members. Marcus decides to speak to Gunnar outside of a regular
meeting and encourages him to voice his ideas at the next team meeting. Gunnar gradu-
ally begins to participate more by asking questions and offering his opinion before the
team asks for it.

Over the following weeks, several more ideas, including a few from Gunnar, are proposed
and evaluated. Eventually, the team reaches a consensus on a solution and outlines its
implementation process. The solution and implementation plan are presented to the
board of directors and administrators for their approval. Once approved, the team moves
forward with implementing the solution. The initial phases of implementation are carried
out successfully, and the team continues to carefully monitor the impact of its solution on
the donations received by the organization.

Solving problems is a natural and necessary part of today’s organizational process.
The prevalence of groups and teams as organizational work units, and the connections
between innovation and teamwork, make group problem solving a significant factor
in the success of contemporary organizations. Chapter 5 introduces the elements of
problem solving, outlines the advantages and challenges of group problem solving, and
provides a detailed examination of the problem-solving process. Finally, it examines the
relationship between creativity and group problem solving and identifies techniques
and strategies for managing creativity in groups.

5.1 What Is Problem Solving?
Problem solving refers to the complex cognitive and physical process of seeking a solution to
a problem or finding a path to a desired outcome or goal. Problems represent unstructured or
inappropriately structured activities to which a solution and/or the path to it have yet to be
made clear (Adejumo, Duimering, & Zhong, 2008). Solutions are options or alternatives that
resolve a problem, address a challenge, satisfy a need, or answer a question (Isaksen, Dorval,
& Treffinger, 2011). Our job as problem solvers is to navigate the path between a problem and
a desirable solution. We do this by using a combination of convergent and divergent thinking.

Convergent and Divergent Thinking
Convergent thinking is a cognitive problem-solving style that involves using existing knowl-
edge, patterns, and critical thinking to derive the single, most concretely correct answer from

Section 5.1

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 165 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.1 What Is Problem Solving?

a finite set of options (Cropley, 2006; Runco, 2003). Convergent thought emphasizes logic,
accuracy, and speed. It focuses on accumulating information, recognizing the familiar, and
reapplying set techniques (Cropley, 2006). Its cognitive opposite, divergent thinking, is ori-
ented toward combining existing knowledge or frames of reference in new or unexpected
ways to produce a potentially infinite set of solution options or alternatives. Divergent thought
emphasizes variability, flexibility, and originality. The divergent thought process focuses on
transforming information, recognizing or generating links between remote frames of refer-
ence, and making innovative combinations. Table 5.1 outlines the processes and results asso-
ciated with convergent and divergent thinking.

Table 5.1: Convergent versus divergent thinking

Type of thought Typical processes Typical results

Convergent • Being logical
• Recognizing the familiar
• Combining items with similar

characteristics
• Identifying a single best answer
• Reapplying set techniques
• Preserving acquired knowledge
• Achieving accuracy and

correctness
• Playing it safe
• Sticking to a limited range of

clearly relevant information

• Only making associations from
directly related fields

• Greater understanding of familiar
concepts

• Better grasp of the facts
• A quick, “correct” answer
• Specific, high-level expertise
• Closure on a particular issue
• A feeling of security and safety

Divergent • Being unconventional
• Seeing familiar concepts,

information, elements, and
processes in a new light

• Combining diverse concepts
• Producing multiple answers
• Shifting perspectives
• Transforming familiar ideas
• Seeing new possibilities
• Taking risks
• Using knowledge from a broad

range of disciplines

• Bringing together ideas from
separate and diverse fields

• Alternative or multiple solutions
• Deviating from tradition or the

“norm”
• Surprising answers
• New approaches
• Exciting or risky possibilities
• Feelings of uncertainty or

excitement

Source: Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404; p. 392. Taylor & Francis.
© 2006 Routledge.

Convergent and divergent thinking are so opposite in style that early researchers felt this
must indicate two distinct types of problems (Farrell & Hooker, 2013). Rittel and Webber
(1973) coined the terms defined and wicked to differentiate between problems that inher-
ently require more convergent or divergent thought processes.

Defined and Wicked Problems
Defined problems refer to straightforward problems that do not require complex interpre-
tation and that have solutions that are demonstrably correct and repeatable—in other words,
they have definitively right and wrong answers (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Farrell & Hooker,
2013). The solution to a defined problem will be one of a finite set of options that require
resources (e.g., knowledge, technology, physical ability, or material equipment) but do not
require complex interpretation to select the right one. Mapping the quickest walking route to

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 166 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.1 What Is Problem Solving?

the nearest Starbucks, for example, is straightforward and requires only the ability to use a
computer or Internet-enabled cell phone.

However, consider what happens to this straightforward problem-solving process if we ask
instead for the best coffee shop within a 2-mile radius of our workplace. Our immediate prob-
lem is interpretation of the term best. Does it mean closest? Fastest or most friendly service?
Perhaps it refers to a coffee shop with extras such as complimentary snacks or a fully loaded
bakery selection. What about coffee types, available flavors, and brewing methods? Maybe
best pertains to the ambiance, design, and comfort of the seating arrangements and available
entertainment or describes the clientele. Each interpretation opens a different set of possible
solutions, and it is likely that real-life interpretations of best will encompass personal combi-
nations of any or all of these elements. This is the nature of wicked problems.

Wicked problems, sometimes called ill-defined, are multilevel problems that change accord-
ing to viewpoint. Before looking for a solution, these problems often require the question to be
interpreted (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Farrell & Hooker, 2013). For example, which interpreta-
tion of “best coffee shop” resonated for you? Depending on your answer, the range of possible
solutions changes. Because they can be interpreted in many different ways, wicked problems
have no definitively “right” answer, and no two people addressing the problem separately are
likely to come up with the exact same solution. As both the problem and what constitutes a
best solution are open for debate, solving wicked problems typically involves constructive
conflict—allowing new ideas and interpretations to emerge. Even when individuals or groups
address a wicked problem they have solved before, they are likely to come up with an entirely
different solution the second time around.

Following their introduction by Rittel and Webber in 1973, the concept of defined and wicked
problems was inducted into problem-solving research across multiple fields. For some time
afterward, defined problems were associated with science and logic, while wicked problems
were tied to creativity and design. Today complex problems are viewed as neither concretely
defined nor wicked, but as a series of nested problems that fall into an approximate position
on a sliding scale between the extremes of defined and wicked. Complex problems almost
always require a dynamic mixture of convergent and divergent thinking, as our critical-think-
ing skills inform and support our creative ideation abilities and provide the basic foundation
for solution testing and critique (Rittel, 2010; Farrell & Hooker, 2013).

Business Applications: Johnson & Johnson and Chicago PD Join
Forces to Fight Crime Using Convergent and Divergent Thinking

Complex problems require a mixture of convergent and divergent thinking. Consider John-
son & Johnson’s collaboration with the Chicago Police Department to investigate and resolve
issues surrounding a series of deaths in the early 1980s that became known as the Chicago
Tylenol murders (Basadur & Gelade, 2006; Emsley, 2008). This was the scenario:

In September and October 1982, seven people from various neighborhoods in Chicago died
suddenly after consuming Tylenol pain capsules, prompting the police to issue urgent warnings
throughout the city. Initial investigations revealed that product tampering after distribution

(continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 167 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

In the next section, we take a look at group problem solving and why groups are ideal for
addressing complex problems.

5.2 Group Problem Solving
Are two heads really better than one? When it comes to solving complex problems, the answer
is typically yes (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Laughlin, Bonner, & Miner, 2002; Laughlin, Zander,
Knievel, & Tan, 2003). Group problem solving represents a social process in which group
members seek a solution to a problem or an optimal path to a desired outcome or goal (Wang
& Chiew, 2010).

caused the deaths. Poison was placed in an unknown number of bottles that were returned
intact to various supermarkets and drugstores. Johnson & Johnson issued a national recall of
Tylenol products, halted Tylenol production and advertising, and publicly warned hospitals,
distributors, and individuals of the potential danger. The company’s market shares collapsed
from 35% to 8% during this time.

Heavily invested in solving the problem for both public and organizational welfare, Johnson &
Johnson joined the ongoing investigation, establishing relations with the Chicago police, the
FBI, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Working together to quickly assemble
and analyze the facts, they determined that only liquid capsule products containing acetamin-
ophen had been tampered with. This narrowed the danger considerably and helped reassure
a panicking populace. Johnson & Johnson offered to exchange any capsules already purchased
for solid tablet forms. While the investigation was still ongoing, Johnson & Johnson’s design
teams began pioneering an innovative tamperproof packaging that has since been adopted
industry-wide. By November the newly packaged products hit the shelves. The media lauded
Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the crisis (Knight, 1982), and the company’s stock rebounded
in less than a year.

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Which type of problem—defined or wicked—and problem-solving style does the state-

ment below imply? Use the information from what you have read to support your
answer.

Working together to quickly assemble and analyze the facts, they determined that only liq-
uid capsule products containing acetaminophen had been tampered with.

2. How did Johnson & Johnson use a mixture of divergent and convergent thinking to solve
the problem of its collapsing market share?

Business Applications: Johnson & Johnson and Chicago PD Join
Forces to Fight Crime Using Convergent and Divergent Thinking

(continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 168 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

Advantages of Group Problem Solving
The major advantage of working in groups for any situation is the ability to access a broad
range of experience and KSAs. By engaging in collaborative performance, groups:

• share assets and resources,
• broaden diversity and range of approach, and
• generate enhanced comprehension and optimization, both in process and for the

final product or outcome.

These are the primary benefits of group interaction. In a well-functioning group or team,
these conditions give groups an advantage over individuals for complex problem solving.

Sharing Assets and Resources
If a problem is complex enough to warrant a group or team, solving it will likely call for a
range of KSAs. For this reason, problem-solving groups often outperform even individuals
with superlative skills or capability (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Laughlin et al., 2003). Variation
in member KSAs can be a highly valuable form of group diversity. Even if members possess
the same or similar KSAs, they will vary in their degree of knowledge or achievement and
their ability to use their KSAs in collaboration with others or in the context of the problem
at hand. All of a group’s members, for example, may know how to use applications like Excel
and PowerPoint; however, some may be particularly proficient, able to work more quickly
within them, have technical knowledge of shortcuts or fixes, or have KSAs that enable them to
put together a more visually pleasing presentation than others in the group. Likewise, some
members may be particularly talented public speakers, be skilled at giving presentations,
know how to explain a complex concept, excel at outlining arguments, or be very persuasive.
Groups that can effectively coordinate their members’ range of KSAs and plug them into the
areas or situations where they are most needed have a distinct advantage over individuals,
who must work with just one set of KSAs.

Groups enable us to move beyond individual limitations in other ways, too. Just as work-
ing with others can help us perform more physical labor than we could accomplish working
alone, groups enable us to carry heavier mental loads. An individual’s capacity to process and
recall information is finite. The working memory of the human brain is only capable of focus-
ing on five to nine items (thoughts, ideas, solutions, and so on) at any given moment (Miller,
1956). Beyond the upper limit of this range, the brain must begin to let some things go. How-
ever, once ideas or information have been shared, they become part of the group’s collective
memory, and chances are good that at least one person will recall or reactivate significant
discussion items before they are lost. The key to unlocking this advantage is effective com-
munication and knowledge sharing.

Broadening Diversity and Range of Approach
Groups have the advantage over individual problem solvers because of their broader diver-
sity and range of approach. This benefits groups in two specific areas: greater access to solu-
tion space and improved creativity.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 169 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

In math and computer science, the set of all possible solutions that satisfy a problem’s con-
straints is known as the solution space. In problem solving, the solution space represents
all the ideas and solutions that can potentially lead us to a desirable outcome. Unfortunately,
studies have shown that when it comes to solving complex problems, most of us tend to over-
look 70% to 80% of our solution space (Gettys, Pliske, Manning, & Casey, 1987; Connolly,
Routhieaux, & Schneider, 1993). This is because we have a tendency to think within familiar
and relatively narrow bounds when faced with large or complex problems; we typically fall
back on previous ideas and perspectives, especially those that have worked well in the past
(Amabile, 1990, 1998; Santanen, Briggs, & de Vreede, 2004). Ironically, it is in solving complex
problems that we most need access to a large and diverse solution space. By sharing diverse
knowledge, expertise, and experience, groups increase their access to the problem’s solu-
tion space. Even if individual members are inclined to repeat past ideas and perspectives,
the diversity of the group will tend to correct this by offering greater variety regarding past
experiences.

Creativity is thought to arise from the juxtaposition, or bringing together in a given context, an
association of frames of reference previously thought to be incompatible (Benedek, Konen, &
Neubauer, 2012). Working in groups increases our potential to juxtapose different ideas,
viewpoints, and frames of reference to come up with new combinations and innovative solu-
tions (Nicholas, Paulus, & Choi, 2011; Milliken, Bartel, & Kurtzberg, 2003). Groups think more
creatively when diverse knowledge and perspectives intersect, as they do in a properly func-
tioning problem-solving team.

Consider the creative solution devel-
oped by the team assigned to
increasing sales in Tesco’s South
Korean supermarket chain, Home
Plus (“Tesco,” 2011). Researching
the company’s clientele, the Tesco
team discovered that dense traffic,
impacted schedules, and propen-
sity to ride commuter trains made
it difficult for South Korean shop-
pers to get to and from the market-
place. However, the team also knew
that browsing real aisles with actual
products was easier, more immedi-
ately gratifying, and more likely to
foster impulse shopping than pains-
takingly searching for specific items
listed on a website and waiting days
for a delivery.

The Tesco team’s solution was to jux-
tapose the disparate frames of the
online and brick-and-mortar marketplace. The team placed large wall panels and kiosks on
subway platforms and terminals, each of which displayed realistic, life-size photos of food
and store items. Customers could simply photograph the items they wanted and pay for them
online. The whole transaction could be handled by cell phone while waiting for a train. With a

Paul Brown/Rex Features via AP Images

Under its local brand name Home Plus, supermarket
Tesco launched virtual shops in South Korea’s
subways that enable time-strapped commuters to
order groceries using their smartphones and receive
deliveries later that evening.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 170 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

delivery time ranging from minutes to hours, customers could even find their groceries wait-
ing for them when they got home.

We will examine creativity and group problem solving in detail later in this chapter.

Generating Enhanced Comprehension and Optimization
Effective problem solving often depends on the capacity to comprehend nested problems and
issues that arise within the process and on the ability to recognize a problem or optimize a
solution. It is a little known fact, for example, that pathologist Eugen Semmer was the first to
report the effects of penicillin—almost 60 years before Alexander Fleming published his own
discovery of the substance in 1929 (Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2010a; Cropley, 2006).
In 1870 Semmer published an article in a well-known German science journal, outlining
the bizarre return to health of infected horses after their accidental exposure to Penicillium
notatum fungus spores. Unfortunately for both Semmer and the world, his work centered on
exploring disease fatality rather than curative factors.

Semmer saw the fungus as a problem—to be eliminated so his studies could progress—
rather than a puzzle that, if solved, would forever change the treatment of disease in both
animals and humans. Oops! Alternate knowledge and perspectives would have been really
helpful there. Interestingly, Fleming also spent 12 years completely focused on the antiseptic
properties of penicillin as a treatment for surface infections and wounds (Chemical Heritage
Foundation, 2010a). It took an interdisciplinary team to realize penicillin’s potential for treat-
ing internal infections and disease (Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2010b).

Discussing ideas within the group and “talking out” possible solutions also enhances our abil-
ity to effectively communicate an idea or solution to those who must implement it. Problems
or failures in the implementation stage can often be traced to communication or comprehen-
sion failures between those who generate a solution and those who apply it. Group members
who are expected both to generate and implement an outcome typically have a more com-
prehensive and accurate understanding of what needs to be done and why than individuals
who are simply assigned to implementation by someone else. Of course, in an organizational
setting, there are often more people involved with implementing a solution than those who
participated in its generation. Here again, the group process has advantages over the individ-
ual; simply by engaging in the problem-solving process together, the group develops clear and
effective communication about the nature and needs of the outcome and its implementation.

Reality Check: “Houston, We Have Had a Problem”
April 13, 1970: Nine minutes after wishing America a good night on a live TV broadcast, the
crew of NASA’s Apollo 13 experienced a “sharp bang and vibration” as an oxygen tank exploded.
Over the course of the next hour, the command module lost critical fuel, electricity, light, and
water supplies as the crew members watched their oxygen vent out into space. Fifteen min-
utes before total loss of power, they evacuated into the attached lunar module (LM) and began
to assess conditions for an emergency landing on Earth.

(continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 171 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

Now that we understand the advantages of problem solving in groups, let’s look at some of
the pitfalls of group problem solving.

Primary Pitfalls in Group Problem Solving
When addressing a complex problem, most problem-solving groups will outperform even the
most skilled, knowledgeable, and capable individuals (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Laughlin et al.,
2002, 2003). However, groups are vulnerable to process loss due to dysfunctional interaction
dynamics between members. Engaging a problem as a group or team requires collaboration

Before the initial explosion, the Apollo 13 crew had been following a preplanned course to land
on the moon. Now, however, they needed to get into a free-return trajectory toward Earth,
using navigational equipment they manually appropriated from the failing command module.
However, the damage from the initial explosion had also compromised the computerized navi-
gation equipment, and ground control had to quickly create and test unique procedures for
altitude and course corrections using the sun as a navigation point.

Consumables were also a problem. Oxygen was sufficient for the projected 90-hour return
flight, but power and water had to be scrounged and rigidly conserved. Intended to support
only two crew members for 24 hours, the LM struggled to accommodate the three-person
crew. Thirty-six hours into the crisis, carbon dioxide levels went critical. The crew needed to
use filtration canisters salvaged from the command module, but they were the wrong shape
for the LM. Under a critical time crunch, Houston quickly assembled a cross-functional task
force to devise a solution using plastic bags, cardboard, and tape—the only materials available
to the Apollo 13 crew—in order to create a makeshift filtration system.

Approximately 87 hours after the initial explosion, the crew splashed down in the South
Pacific and was safely recovered by the USS Iwo Jima. Although Apollo 13 did not complete
its intended mission, the incredible teamwork involved in the safe return of the crew caused
NASA to classify the mission as a “successful failure.” Although the problem solvers were all
capable, intelligent experts, it took the flexibility and creativity engendered by team collabora-
tion to resolve the myriad of complex critical issues and bring the crew of the Apollo 13 safely
home.

For more details on the Apollo 13 mission, visit the website below:

http://space.about.com/od/spaceexplorationhistory/a/apollo13.htm

Critical-Thinking Questions
1. To design a workable filtration canister using only the materials the crew had aboard

the Apollo 13, NASA put together an emergency task force. Given the severe time limit
for solving the problem, and the fact that individuals tend to be faster problem solvers
than groups, explain why you think NASA decided to give this problem to a team rather
than just one very smart individual.

2. Optional: Watch the 1995 film Apollo 13, which dramatically reenacts the group
problem-solving processes engaged in by both shuttle crew and Houston ground teams.

Reality Check: “Houston, We Have Had a Problem” (continued)

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 172 8/19/16 9:35 AM

http://space.about.com/od/spaceexplorationhistory/a/apollo13.htm

Section 5.2 Group Problem Solving

at every turn. As with all group processes, lack of participation and poor communication
take a heavy toll on the efficacy of problem-solving groups. Specific issues include evaluation
apprehension, production blocking, and destructive criticism, all of which can contribute to and
be worsened by lack of participation and poor communication.

Evaluation Apprehension
The fear of being poorly perceived or evaluated by others—known as evaluation apprehen-
sion—can inhibit group creativity and problem-solving processes. When working in groups,
we tend to express our intrinsic desire for acceptance by wanting to appear competent and
garner support or praise from other members regarding our contributions to group efforts
(Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). Unfortunately, when people feel unsure of their abilities or fear
that group members will react negatively to their contributions, they often participate less,
abstain from, or conform to the majority during group discussions (Paulus, 1999).

While mutual accountability supports collective motivation and the sense of “us-ness” within
a group, it can also be perceived as a social pressure to perform well. Group members who
fear criticism or rejection tend to self-censor to avoid being judged poorly, perceived as dis-
agreeable, or viewed as a “weak link” within the group (Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003).
These attitudes and behaviors can turn into habitual social loafing, or the tendency for some
members to work below capacity when in a group (Blaskovich, 2008; Lam, 2015). While eval-
uation apprehension is internally motivated, the other major contributor to social loafing—
production blocking—is externally imposed.

Production Blocking
Have you ever had a great idea to suggest to a group but couldn’t get a word into the conversa-
tion—and then forgot it when the chance to share came around? Production blocking occurs
when members are distracted from their thinking processes or unable to verbalize their ideas
as they occur (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003), resulting in ideas being suppressed or lost. This tends
to occur most often in the fast-paced or energetic discussions that typically surround group
interactions involving ideation, conflict, and debate (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Rietzschel, Nijs-
tad, & Stroebe, 2006)—all characteristic features of the group problem-solving process.
When members are brainstorming or discussing a concept, it can be difficult for others to
keep track of—let alone get adequate time to present—their own ideas. This is particularly
true for individuals who are less socially confident (Nijstad, Diehl, & Strobe, 2003).

If enough time passes or if the group shifts topics, members may perceive their opinions or
suggestions as irrelevant or second guess their usefulness (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991).
Once in that mindset, they may voluntarily suppress information or ideas even when offered
a chance to share. While these interaction dynamics do not appear overtly threatening, the
effects of production blocking can be so severe that, for a period of time in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, some researchers advocated individual problem solving, asserting that effective
group ideation was essentially a myth (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas,
1991; Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes, & Camacho, 1993; Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1992). It
took a decade of research to overturn this perception and conclude that group ideation really
does work—when the activities are properly structured (Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996;
Kramer, Fleming, & Mannis, 2001; Nijstad et al., 2003). Section 5.5 takes a closer look at how
this is done.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 173 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

Destructive Criticism
Reaping the benefits of group interaction and problem solving heavily depends on open com-
munication and knowledge sharing between group members. Constructive criticism points
out errors, flaws, and weaknesses in members’ task-related ideas, contributions, and efforts
for the purpose of strengthening these. It often includes suggestions that aid personal devel-
opment and performance. Destructive criticism, on the other hand, points out errors, flaws,
weaknesses, and other perceived negatives in members’ task-related ideas, contributions,
and efforts without regard for strengthening these. In other words, destructive criticism tears
down personal contributions and performance without offering any assistance to build them
back up. While constructive criticism fosters trust, confidence, and knowledge sharing among
group members, destructive criticism has the opposite effect. Member trust, confidence, and
knowledge sharing suffer, severely hampering the group problem-solving process. Destruc-
tive criticism also increases existing member tendencies toward evaluation apprehension
and social loafing. In the next section, we will examine the group problem-solving process.

5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process
Researchers in the field of group dynamics have spent considerable time and effort exam-
ining the group problem-solving process to find that problem solving involves a four-stage
cycle (Basadur, Gelade, & Basadur, 2014). In this section, we outline the problem-solving cycle
(Figure 5.1) and illustrate the general activities that take place within each stage.

The stages are sequential, beginning with generation and ending with implementation—how-
ever, solving a complex problem typically entails solving a series of smaller “problems within
the problem.” For example, shrinking battery size while maintaining charge time was just one
of the problems Apple designers solved to produce an iPad Mini that was 23% thinner and
53% lighter than a full-sized iPad (Dilger, 2012). Because each problem that arises within the
larger problem-solving process also follows the four-stage cycle from beginning to end, many
view complex problem solving as a circular process, wherein the stages flow continuously
and sequentially into one another for as long as the problem solvers remain engaged in the
process (Basadur & Gelade, 2003, 2006).

Stage 1: Generation
Generation marks the beginning of the problem-solving process. In this stage, problems are
discovered by proactively acquiring information and sensing opportunities, trends, inconsis-
tencies, and needs via a process that has been playfully referred to as “opportunistic surveil-
lance” (Basadur et al., 2014, p. 83). What does this look like in the real world? In an inter-
view with Life magazine (Callahan, 1972), Edwin Land described how problem recognition
spurred his invention of the Polaroid camera. While vacationing in Santa Fe with his 3-year-
old daughter, Land came to the end of his roll of film and suggested they take it for processing
so that they could see their pictures. Frustrated by the wait, his daughter asked why she could

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 174 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Stage 1
Generation

Stage 3
Optimization

Stage 4
Implementation

Stage 2
Conceptualization

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

not see the pictures right away. Galvanized by her question, Land considered a problem that
had never occurred to him before:

As I walked around that charming town, I undertook the task of solving the
puzzle she had set for me. Within the hour, the camera, the film and the physi-
cal chemistry became so clear that with a great sense of excitement I hurried
to the place where a friend was staying, to describe to him in detail a dry
camera which would give a picture immediately after exposure. . . . Four years
later we demonstrated the working system to the Optical Society of America.
(Callahan, 1972, p. 48)

Years later, Land stated that the moment in which his daughter asked him why she had to
wait so long to see their pictures—the moment that spurred his spontaneous recognition of
a problem—was the most important part of his invention process (Basadur & Gelade, 2003).

Opportunistic surveillance depends on our ability to recognize an opportunity for improve-
ment or change, as Land did when he regarded his daughter’s question as an opportunity to
design a new style of camera and film development. In the workplace, opportunistic surveil-
lance can represent relatively simple acts of problem recognition, like finding an error on an
accounting balance sheet, to infinitely more complex processes, such as actively following
trends to identify new market or product opportunities. At the generation stage, problems are

Figure 5.1: The four-stage problem-solving cycle

As problems nested within the problem-solving process arise, the problem-solving cycle becomes
circular in nature.

Source: Based on Basadur & Gelade, 2003, 2006.

Stage 1
Generation
Stage 3
Optimization
Stage 4
Implementation
Stage 2
Conceptualization

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 175 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

recognized but not yet clearly defined and understood (Basadur et al., 2014). We may recog-
nize an error in our balance sheet, for example, but not know exactly where the problem lies.
Often, problem-solving groups and teams are formed or brought in after the generation stage.
For instance, once an organization identifies a new market opportunity or product need, it
will then create a group or team to develop that opportunity or product to best advantage.

Stage 2: Conceptualization
Conceptualization encompasses the period in which effort is spent to understand the nature
and scope of the problem identified during the generation stage, and to use this knowledge
to imagine and formulate solutions. The key point here is in preserving that sequence, with
activities first undertaken to define the problem, then to generate ideas, which is known as
ideation. This order is critical, because the way in which a problem is defined has a great
deal of impact on how people ideate solutions. Consider our earlier example of Land and the
Polaroid camera. When his daughter asked why she could not immediately view their photos,
Land took that moment of generation and conceptualized a problem defined as, “How can I
make a camera that would allow us to view our photos now?” What if Land had simply defined
the problem as, “How can I explain photo processing to my daughter?” He would have merely
explained why the photos took so long to process, and a piece of classic Americana may never
have been invented. Instead, Land’s definition lead him to ideate a new hand-held camera that
would produce no chemical waste, and have zero processing time (Callahan, 1972).

Next, we examine what happens to the ideas and solutions we come up with after the concep-
tualization stage.

Stage 3: Optimization
Optimization involves analyzing and critiquing ideas and solutions formed during the con-
ceptualization period. These are matched against practical considerations and real-world
constraints in an effort to identify and plan for potential difficulties. At this point, problem-
solving teams systematically examine proposals and alternatives to develop what they think
is the best solution that can be carried out with existing resources, and a plan for implement-
ing that solution (Basadur et al., 2014). For example, while Land was unable to fully satisfy his
original desire for his camera to have zero processing time, he worked with multiple teams to
significantly reduce actual processing time by inventing new self-developing film print. They
also reduced perceived processing time by designing a quick ejection system.

While the possibility for conflict and miscommunication exist throughout the problem-
solving process, teams are particularly prone to these—and their negative dynamics—dur-
ing the optimization stage. This is due, in part, to the composition of problem-solving teams.
Effective teams are often intentionally diverse to give the group access to a wide range of per-
sonal knowledge, expertise, and perspectives. As we have already learned, diverse teams tend
to generate higher quality and more innovative ideas. This is because they are more likely
to challenge existing ideas and assumptions, apply multiple perspectives to identify poten-
tial problems, and develop more comprehensive and better justified strategies and solutions
through debate (Walkup, 2003; Agrawal, 2012). However, diversity also generates more con-
flict, which can negatively affect member relations and lead to process loss if too much time
is spent in debate.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 176 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.3 The Group Problem-Solving Process

Whereas the conceptualization stage is characterized by a general openness to diverse per-
spectives, the optimization stage can present a “cold shower” on this spirit of cooperation, as
members realize that the opinions and arguments they entertain now will truly affect the out-
come of the problem-solving process. Members can form logical and emotional attachments
to certain ideas or solutions and feel threatened by the idea of debate and collective decision
making. After solutions are analyzed and selected, we move on to implementation.

Stage 4: Implementation
Implementation marks the completion of the problem-solving process. Activities at this
point are focused on putting the team’s solution into action—whether that means announc-
ing a new organizational policy, decision, or process; manufacturing and distributing a prod-
uct; or introducing a new or updated service—and monitoring their effect. As with the gen-
eration stage, implementation stage activities may or may not be carried out by the same
group that engaged in the conceptualization and optimization stages. Teams tasked with new
product development typically oversee the entire process, from initial ideation and design, to
prototype creation and testing, to manufacturing and distribution. Other project teams, task
forces, and parallel teams may complete their efforts before implementation. These teams
carry out activities such as researching a new market opportunity, designing a new advertise-
ment or sales strategy, finding an urgent solution to a specific design flaw, or investigating an
organizational decision or issue. In such cases implementation is then passed on to others
within the organization.

Implementation is not simply a matter of determining a solution, making a plan to carry it out,
and letting it all unfold. The progress of the implementation plan and the success or failure
of the solution must be carefully monitored and adjusted as needed. Although this repre-
sents the end stage of a group’s primary problem-solving objective, smaller issues and prob-
lems can still arise and must be immediately addressed. Let’s consider the Polaroid example
again. Land’s teams were able to create a smaller camera by using an internal optical system
featuring precision mirrors. The first of its kind to operate in such a tiny space, this system
took years to develop. Polaroid then had to develop a precision molding process to produce
the camera components. Additionally, to implement the quick print eject system and inter-
nal optical system, Land’s Polaroid teams needed to develop a substance that would pro-
tect the film as it continued processing in regular light (Callahan, 1972). Land’s teams had to
solve many small problems in its pursuit of solving the primary problem of creating a smaller,
faster, and more efficient camera.

It is typical for problems to arise within the problem-solving process. Organizational prob-
lems that call for group work or teamwork tend to be complex, encompassing a series of
smaller problems within them (Basadur & Gelade, 2006). For example, tasking a team with
developing a specific service for a new online market involves a number of smaller problems,
such as discovering exactly what these new clients desire from the service; how it will be
advertised, offered, and delivered; and solving all of the practical and technical details of the
design for implementation. Each of the smaller problems that arise within the problem-
solving process will follow their own variation of the four-stage life cycle (Basadur et al.,
2014). They will be recognized (generation) and analyzed and interpreted for solution ide-
ation (conceptualization). Then solution ideas and alternatives will be critiqued to determine
an optimal choice (optimization), and the solution will be put into effect (implementation).

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 177 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Stage 1 Generation
• Step 1: Recognizing
the problem

Stage 3 Optimization
• Step 4: Solution
testing
• Step 5: Selecting a
solution

Stage 2
Conceptualization
• Step 2: Problem framing
• Step 3: Generating solutions

Stage 4
Implementation
• Step 6: Putting the solution
into effect
• Step 7: Generating the Solution

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

Now that we have a firm grasp on the problem-solving cycle and some of the activities involved
with each stage, the next section maps the process step-by-step.

5.4 Step by Step: Detailing the Group
Problem-Solving Process
The four stages of the problem-solving cycle represent a broad view of the problem-solving
process. Imagined as a journey plotted out on a map, generation, conceptualization, optimiza-
tion, and implementation represent the major cities we plan to travel through. What this itin-
erary lacks is a detailed view of what we will actually be doing in each of these places. To
effectively act within the group problem-solving process, we need a take a closer look at the
individual steps that are involved in collectively solving a problem and the activities they
encompass. These are incorporated in the detailed four-stage problem-solving cycle shown in
Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Detailed four-stage problem-solving cycle

There are seven steps that take place within the four-stage problem-solving cycle.

Stage 1 Generation
• Step 1: Recognizing
the problem
Stage 3 Optimization
• Step 4: Solution
testing
• Step 5: Selecting a
solution
Stage 2
Conceptualization
• Step 2: Problem framing
• Step 3: Generating solutions
Stage 4
Implementation
• Step 6: Putting the solution
into effect
• Step 7: Generating the Solution

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 178 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

To further our understanding of group problem solving, we’ll examine the steps in the
problem-solving process as they played out in the development of Procter & Gamble’s Coast
soap bar (Basadur & Gelade, 2003).

In 1972 Colgate launched Irish Spring, a green soap bar featuring stripes—a look never before
seen in American soap. The company’s ad campaign was based on the idea of “refreshment,”
and the soap was a huge success. Management executives at Procter & Gamble decided to
introduce their own product to capitalize on the Irish Spring market campaign. Working off
the idea that second entrants into a new market must demonstrate a competitive advantage,
they launched a new product development team (NPDT) to solve the following problem: How
can we make a green-striped bar that consumers would prefer over Irish Spring? By defining
the problem this way, Procter & Gamble focused solely on the soap’s appearance, overlooking
the fact that the ad campaign linking Irish Spring to “refreshment” was also a large factor in
the product’s success. Proctor & Gamble executives realized the limitations they had imposed
on their team when, despite serious efforts and experimentation, they failed to develop a
green-striped soap that could outperform Irish Spring. Blind testing rated their prototypes as
merely equal in quality, and the NPDT drew a blank on where to go from there.

Proctor & Gamble executives brought in an expert (Basadur & Gelade, 2003), who suggested
they define the problem in another way: How might our soap better embody or suggest “refresh-
ment” in appearance, shape, and odor? Using this updated definition, the team visualized
scenes, situations, and images that suggested refreshment. Of the many ideas proposed, two
were selected and combined: (a) the image and sensations of standing at the seacoast, and
(b) sitting on a beach looking at blue-and-white clouds. This ultimately resulted in a blue-and-
white swirled bar of a unique odor and shape that Proctor & Gamble successfully marketed
under the brand name Coast—but not without first solving a few more nested problems. In
the end, Coast soap was wildly successfully after its launch in 1976 and remains a consistent
breadwinner for Proctor & Gamble today.

Let’s begin our examination of the steps encompassed within the problem-solving process.

Step 1: Recognizing the Problem
Recognizing the problem is a vital part of the problem-solving process. It includes activities
such as data comprehension, pattern seeking, perception of the interaction between the
parts and whole, and locating discrepancies, dysfunction, and opportunity for change. The
problem-solving process cannot actually begin until a problem is recognized. However, this
step is often discounted because problem-solving teams typically arrive on the scene after
recognition has occurred. This was the case for members of the Coast soap team. They were
assigned to address an opportunity—launch a product to capitalize on the success of Irish
Spring soap—and a problem—design a competitive new productive that will appeal to Irish
Spring consumers—that had already been recognized by Proctor & Gamble’s management
executives. Once a problem has been recognized, the process of problem framing begins.

Step 2: Framing the Problem
Problem framing describes the process of examining and clarifying the essential nature of a
given problem, its associated elements, and context. Key activities of problem framing include

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 179 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

seeking data and contextual information, defining the problem, accessing and assessing
resources, thinking critically, shifting perspective or viewing the issue from multiple sides,
and identifying the basic needs, parameters, values, and assumptions outlined by the prob-
lem. For groups that have been given a particular problem to solve, problem framing repre-
sents the beginning of the problem-solving process, and it is absolutely essential for quality
solutions. However, as we saw in the Coast team case study, this step is often overlooked or
mishandled.

The fast pace of today’s work settings reflects the dynamism of the modern marketplace.
Rapid turnaround times are not only expected, but often necessary to keep up with an orga-
nization’s need for competitive performance. As a result, group members may feel pressured
to skip problem framing or move too quickly through it, without gaining any real understand-
ing of the problem they need to solve. The initial framing of a problem, however, may be the
single most impactful element in determining the number and quality of potential solutions,
the time needed to generate them, and the ability of the group or team to find a viable solution
(Posner, 1973).

Problem framing involves clarifying and interpreting the problem definition—the core issue
that needs to be addressed in order to find a desired solution. This does not always mirror
the initial directives given to group members. For example, a marketing team may be told to
come up with a strategy to increase product sales to women. However, in framing the prob-
lem, the team may discover a root cause for poor sales, such as a popular perception that the
product is unhealthy. The problem then becomes: How do we change customers’ perception
of our product? Addressing this core issue would satisfy the initial directive to find a way to
increase sales to women and will likely have the additional benefit of increasing sales in other
demographic markets as well.

The problem definition profoundly impacts the strategies and approach group members take
in generating potential solutions because it (Bardwell, 1991):

• outlines the basic needs that the problem represents;
• indicates problem parameters, or guidelines that set the bounds for what can and

cannot be done; and
• sets fundamental values and assumptions.

Each of these functions is critical to understanding the nature of a given problem, and together,
they dictate the basic outline of the problem’s solution space. Let’s return to the Coast exam-
ple. The original problem definition used by the Coast soap team specified two basic needs:
(a) create a green-striped soap bar and (b) outperform Irish Spring. The appearance and per-
formance of Irish Spring therefore set parameters on how the new soap bar should look and
perform. The original problem definition placed high value on the scientific formulation of
the soap, discounting any need for creative design outside of the set parameters, based on the
assumption that Irish Spring’s success was all due to its novel appearance.

Rather than questioning these directives and developing a clear understanding of the prob-
lem and its core issues, the team accepted the problem definition as given and moved imme-
diately into solution generation and testing. The lack of proper framing resulted in failed
solutions and wasted time, effort, and resources, as the team ultimately realized that their
problem definition was too limited for an effective solution. To succeed, the problem had to

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 180 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

be reframed. Reframing represents a shift in perspective that involves discontinuing the cur-
rent course and taking the time to reevaluate and reinterpret the problem definition. Though
ultimately successful, the new product development team wasted nearly 6 months working
a poorly defined problem. This illustrates how important it is to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the nature and scope of a problem and define the problem in a way that sup-
ports rather than inhibits productive ideation. Later in the chapter, we will take another look
at problem definition and reframing and the impact these have on group creativity.

Once a problem has been properly framed, problem solvers can begin to seek a solution.

Step 3: Generating Solutions
Generating solutions is a complex group process that includes activities such as selecting an
approach to ideation and problem solving, formulating possible solutions, undertaking inter-
active and noninteractive ideation activities, and generating convergent and divergent ideas.
In its first attempt to solve the problem they were given, the Coast soap team focused on sci-
entific aspects of the soap’s formulation. The soap’s appearance and marketing points were
considered as set—they were basically tasked with creating a “look-alike” soap that could be
marketed as performing better than Irish Spring. Although they tried many ideas, the team
failed to achieve the desired results and ultimately decided to address the problem in a new
way.

After the second round of problem framing, the team’s revised problem definition called for the
development of an entirely new soap that would embody the same elements that made Irish
Spring so successful—an innovative appearance and a sensual experience—and do so better
than that original soap bar. To achieve this, the Coast soap team engaged in brainstorming, a
group ideation activity that involves the mass contribution of spontaneously developed ideas
and solutions that then influence and build upon further contributions within the session, or
period of time in which the brainstorming occurs. Ideation activities refer to exercises and
activities that foster creativity and help generate unique ideas. In this case brainstorming led
to a creative combination of ideas that resulted in Coast soap’s trademark appearance, odor,
and shape.

Once multiple solutions have been generated, they must be tested for applicability, effective-
ness, and potential errors or flaws. This brings us to step 4.

Step 4: Testing Solutions
Solution testing refers to the process of critically evaluating solution alternatives. Core activi-
ties in this step include exploring and critically analyzing solution options; developing key
criteria or standards for evaluation and improvement; evaluating solutions in terms of their
potential for success; searching for inherent errors, flaws, or weaknesses; finding potential
implementation problems; and exploring alternative ways to solve problems. Flaws or weak-
nesses found during this stage are addressed to strengthen each potential solution. Solution
testing weeds out the weakest options and identifies (generation) issues nested within viable
solutions that must be addressed before any option can be selected for implementation. The
problem-solving cycle repeats, since addressing these problems or generating alternatives
to replace weak solutions requires moving through previous cycle stages with new problem
inputs.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 181 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

Recycling through the stages is not necessarily a lengthy process. Unless the team decides that
its initial problem framing is faulty, the framing and ideation process for nested problems are
guided by the team’s existing understanding of the primary problem and its core issues and
needs. This generally helps speed the process of framing and solution generation for nested
problems (although some can be quite complex), leading the team into productive discussions
that maintain a relative balance between ideation and evaluation (Isaksen et al., 2011). Test-
ing of the Coast soap team’s initial solutions resulted in only partial success. While the team
was able to create soap that looked similar to Irish Spring, it was not successful in surpassing
its competitor’s performance in blind testing of the soap bars. This led the team to conclude
that its original problem framing was indeed faulty. The team had to go back and begin again.

Once viable solutions have been determined through solution testing, problem-solving teams
move on to the fifth step: selecting a solution.

Step 5: Selecting a Solution
Selecting a solution includes activities such as comprehending and agreeing on the criteria
of an optimal solution. This typically involves knowledge sharing and constructive conflict.
Resolving poor communication and dysfunctional conflict are often required as well. A solu-
tion’s effectiveness may depend on the level of acceptance, commitment to follow through,
and support it garners in terms of human and material resources to carry it out (Isaksen et al.,
2011). It is therefore important that group members fully participate in the selection process.
Members should also keep in mind that while each individual may have developed particular
attachments to one solution or another, the solution outcome is the result of a major collab-
orative effort—and should reflect the option that the group collectively believes to be the best.

Of course, the term best is open to interpretation and assumption. Members need to con-
sciously decide what optimal means for the problem they are addressing and work toward
maintaining constructive rather than dysfunctional conflict. Although the Coast example does
not illustrate the selection process, we do know its result: agreeing to select and combine
two specific ideas—the image and experience of standing at the seacoast, and sitting on a
beach looking at blue-and-white clouds—both of which engage natural elements to invoke
refreshment.

Once solution selections have been agreed on, group energies shift to the sixth step: putting
them into effect.

Step 6: Putting the Solution Into Effect
Putting the solution into effect involves developing and coordinating an implementation plan.
Other activities include sequencing action steps, formulating and organizing a schedule, coor-
dinating material and human resources, communicating all of the necessary information and
details to others, and addressing problems as they arise.

It is extremely important for groups at this stage to remember that an implementation plan
becomes more complex as more people become involved. As an implementation plan grows
to accommodate and coordinate more people, it will also need to become more comprehen-
sive and explicit, and it will require a greater degree of cooperation and collaboration. The
task of explaining the solution and its implementation plan becomes more difficult as well,

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 182 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.4Step by Step: Detailing the Group Problem-Solving Process

since the explanations must be reduced to a simple clarity and meaning that is easily commu-
nicated—even when done second- and thirdhand. While the solution itself may be a product
of divergent and innovative thinking, developing the implementation plan will require a more
systematic, structured approach.

During the implementation process, the Coast soap team encountered a patent issue in the
design of its soap manufacturing machinery. At the time, there were at least six worldwide
patents placing restrictions on how blue-and-white soap pastes could be blended during the
manufacturing process. The Coast soap team quickly assembled a cheetah team with cross-
functional membership that included engineers, technicians, and lawyers to solve the prob-
lems in the machinery design so its new product could be legally manufactured and released.
We can infer that putting the solution into effect also involved coordinating the manufactur-
ing process, product release, and all the people and resources involved, as well as designing
and implementing the marketing campaign.

Although putting a solution into effect may seem like the end of the problem-solving process,
the final step actually involves checking the solution.

Step 7: Checking the Solution
Checking the solution involves monitoring outcomes to identify and resolve potential issues
and to determine their relative success (or failure). To do this, group members must identify
key feedback points in the process. They do so by formulating agreed-upon checkpoints and
criteria markers to measure solution progress and by monitoring solution implementation
and its consequences and effects (including feedback and progress tracking). These perfor-
mance indicators might include:

• personnel placed in key process areas;
• social media buzz;
• specific criteria that can be used to track and measure effectiveness over time, such

as productivity or financial return within a specific time interval;
• customer and employee satisfaction; and
• clear objectives that can be periodically measured or met, such as a manufacturing

or sales goal.

Solution monitoring may be carried out by the problem-solving team, or it may be handed off
to other individuals and teams. Although it comes at the end of the process, solution check-
ing is a core component of solution effectiveness. The immediate and lasting success of Coast
soap represents major criteria indicating the effectiveness of the solution over time, as well
as customer satisfaction with the product.

Now that we have thoroughly explored the group problem-solving process, let’s examine the
role creativity plays in problem solving. In the next section, we look at major elements that
enhance or dampen group creativity, tactics for managing them, and strategies for effective
group ideation.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 183 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Creativity does not just automatically happen when we work in groups, however. Problem
framing, cognitive style, and negative factors such as evaluation apprehension, lack of con-
structive communication, and production blocking all impact our ability to access diverse
frames of reference to generate creative solutions. In this section, we outline strategies for
dealing with all of these issues. Let’s begin by looking at how problem framing can impact our
creativity.

Framing for Innovation
Recall that problem framing occurs early in the problem-solving process and involves exam-
ining and clarifying the nature of a given problem, its associated elements, and context. Prob-
lem solvers can impact their access to creative solutions by consciously managing problem
framing to deliberately limit or expand the solution space. But how does this work? Recall
that while convergent and divergent thinking are both needed to solve complex problems,
one or the other of these styles can become dominant, as problems slide toward either the
defined or wicked end of the spectrum. We can control this shift by selecting a defined or
wicked problem definition. Consider the following problem scenario:

I live 10 miles from work, and my car gets 30 mpg. I’d like to reduce my fuel
consumption for economic reasons. I’d like a list of alternatives to my car’s
current consumption.

Table 5.2 shows the variations in framing this problem using convergent or divergent thinking.

Limiting the solution to the top 10 car choices that combine economy of fuel and price nar-
rows the solution space to a specific number of options that can be critically examined and
ranked. Placing no limit on the number or type of options for reducing fuel consumption dra-
matically broadens the solution space to include diverse possibilities such as biking, carpool-
ing, taking public transportation, working remotely from home, moving to a living space that
is closer to work, changing jobs, and so on. We can thus see how problem framing can be used
to limit or expand the solution space.

Table 5.2: Convergent versus divergent problem framing

Framing for convergent thinking Framing for divergent thinking

Style description Convergent thinking requires a finite
set of options in which the answer is
demonstrably correct.

Divergent thinking calls for a poten-
tially infinite solution set depending
on the interpretation of the problem
definition.

Action Impose further parameters that limit
the number and type of options.

Deliberately choose a problem
definition that allows for the greatest
amount of freedom while still satisfy-
ing the situation parameters.

Problem definition Determine a list of top 10 new car
choices that combine economy of fuel
and price to own.

List economically viable options that
will help reduce my fuel consumption.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 184 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

So why is this important? To solve complex problems, we develop unique and supportive
combinations of convergent and divergent thinking. The above example illustrates just how
easy it can be for a problem and our processing style to slip from one to the other. Under-
standing how to deliberately manage this shift enables us to do the following:

• Effectively narrow an overwhelming solution set if project schedule, resources,
needs, or member capacities demand it

• Foster creativity by broadening the solution space and enabling the development of
diverse interpretations and associations

• Recognize how and when the problem definition influences our problem-solving
style and the size of our solution space

• Intentionally adjust our problem-solving style and solution space as needed by
reframing the problem

In our step-by-step case study, Proctor & Gamble’s Coast soap team reframed its problem
when it reached a point of impasse with its initial problem definition. The team reached that
point by failing to question the designated problem definition and engage in a comprehensive
problem-framing process. All too often, the desire to appear competent and the drive for suc-
cess cause teams to rush through the problem-framing process. They extrapolate basic needs
and parameters and follow values and assumptions inherent to a problem definition they
never bother to question. Cultural conditioning is also partly to blame. Societal norms gen-
erated through our experience with family, learning institutions, law enforcement, and the
military suggest that we follow authoritative directives without seriously questioning their
fundamental nature or essential function. In creative problem solving, questioning the status
quo can be paramount, and the task of problem framing is used not just to correct an error
but to expand the solution space and enhance creativity by reinterpreting the given problem
definition.

5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving
Alex Osborn coined the term creative problem solving in 1953 to describe complex problem
solving geared toward innovative and creative solutions. Today innovative and creative solu-
tions have become organizational imperatives. Globalization and the online marketplace have
created a customer base that is not only more diverse, but more informed about products
and services, competitive pricing, and what other customers think about quality and satis-
faction—and they have developed a taste and expectancy for “new” and “better” variations
of both goods and services (Santanen et al., 2004). To stay competitive, organizations have
adopted creativity as a formal strategy, and their policies reflect this. Based on the idea that
innovation begins by recognizing the problems of the customer, for example, newly hired
research and development scientists and engineers at Toshiba spend the beginning of their
tenure in the sales department, developing their problem-recognition skills (Basadur, 1992).
Likewise, the 3M Company has established innovation as a measurable component of its
corporate strategy, maintaining objectives such as 30% of the 3M products offered in every
5-year period must be new (Basadur & Gelade, 2006).
Creativity does not just automatically happen when we work in groups, however. Problem
framing, cognitive style, and negative factors such as evaluation apprehension, lack of con-
structive communication, and production blocking all impact our ability to access diverse
frames of reference to generate creative solutions. In this section, we outline strategies for
dealing with all of these issues. Let’s begin by looking at how problem framing can impact our
creativity.
Framing for Innovation
Recall that problem framing occurs early in the problem-solving process and involves exam-
ining and clarifying the nature of a given problem, its associated elements, and context. Prob-
lem solvers can impact their access to creative solutions by consciously managing problem
framing to deliberately limit or expand the solution space. But how does this work? Recall
that while convergent and divergent thinking are both needed to solve complex problems,
one or the other of these styles can become dominant, as problems slide toward either the
defined or wicked end of the spectrum. We can control this shift by selecting a defined or
wicked problem definition. Consider the following problem scenario:
I live 10 miles from work, and my car gets 30 mpg. I’d like to reduce my fuel
consumption for economic reasons. I’d like a list of alternatives to my car’s
current consumption.
Table 5.2 shows the variations in framing this problem using convergent or divergent thinking.
Limiting the solution to the top 10 car choices that combine economy of fuel and price nar-
rows the solution space to a specific number of options that can be critically examined and
ranked. Placing no limit on the number or type of options for reducing fuel consumption dra-
matically broadens the solution space to include diverse possibilities such as biking, carpool-
ing, taking public transportation, working remotely from home, moving to a living space that
is closer to work, changing jobs, and so on. We can thus see how problem framing can be used
to limit or expand the solution space.
Table 5.2: Convergent versus divergent problem framing
Framing for convergent thinking Framing for divergent thinking
Style description Convergent thinking requires a finite
set of options in which the answer is
demonstrably correct.
Divergent thinking calls for a poten-
tially infinite solution set depending
on the interpretation of the problem
definition.
Action Impose further parameters that limit
the number and type of options.
Deliberately choose a problem
definition that allows for the greatest
amount of freedom while still satisfy-
ing the situation parameters.
Problem definition Determine a list of top 10 new car
choices that combine economy of fuel
and price to own.
List economically viable options that
will help reduce my fuel consumption.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 185 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Concepts in Action: Lessons in Reframing: “What’s in a Name (Tag)?”
On the first day of teaching her class on creativity and innovation at Stanford’s design school,
Dr. Tina Seelig (2012) asked students to redesign their name tags, pointing out that the origi-
nals were poorly placed (at the belt line) with small, difficult-to-read text that offered little
useful information about or insight into an individual. The students set to work, assuming that
Seelig’s statement about the original name tags’ deficiencies outlined the basic parameters
of a clearly defined problem—to design a better name tag by addressing those issues. Not 20
minutes later, Seelig’s students proudly faced her with new, hand-decorated name tags that
featured names and quick facts in large, clear text and were prominently pinned to their shirt-
fronts. They had efficiently solved the given problem—but was efficiency the most desirable
outcome? Seelig collected the new tags, tossed them into a paper shredder, and asked, “Why
do we use name tags at all?”

The professor was not trying to devalue their efforts or suggest that name tags themselves
are worthless; she was asking her students to think about the actual purpose the name tags
serve, and she invited them to reframe her original challenge to redesign the name tags. A
creative dialogue emerged during which the students agreed that name tags attempt to serve
a far more sophisticated set of functions than simply displaying one’s name, affiliation, or
job title (Seelig, 2012). Name tags theoretically increase comfort by identifying everyone as
(a) belonging to the same group and (b) being receptive to interaction. They act as icebreakers,
conversation starters, and cue cards for names and other potential avenues for relationship
building. Name tags promise acceptance of interaction, demonstrate the desire for increased
familiarity, and help strangers discover shared interests. This is a tall order that the quick fact
display of most name tags typically does not deliver.

With a new understanding of the problem, student teams set out to design a better name tag
by redesigning the name tag concept. In the process, they came up with some very interest-
ing innovations. One team threw out the pin tag concept and designed individualized T-shirts
that integrated their names, interests, places they had been or lived, and other conversational
starting points into a playful mix of text and pictures. Another team focused on the importance
of emotional intelligence in fostering meaningful connections and designed its own recon-
figurable “mood bracelets.” These assigned colored ribbons to a variety of moods that when
combined into the bracelet served as an emotional message board that fostered a sense of
closeness and empathy between individuals and acted as conversation starters (Seelig, 2012).

Reframing the problem offered a deeper understanding of what students were trying to accom-
plish, and the benefits of the experience were both immediate and long lasting. In the moment
of the project, they were able to shift from simple efficiency to more meaningful effectiveness.
The deeper knowledge they gained of a name tag’s purpose and the memory of their reframing
experience will serve to enhance their confidence, comfort, and openness in future icebreaker
situations, even when the name tags themselves are mostly mundane. More importantly, the
students learned that they do not need to be controlled by a problem or issue; they can take
charge of the problem-solving process and enhance their own effectiveness through problem
framing or reframing. As Seelig (2012) puts it, “The simple process of asking ‘why’ questions
provides an incredibly useful tool for expanding the landscape of solutions for a problem.. . .
When I asked why we use name tags, the scope of solutions expanded exponentially” (p. 22).

Critical-Thinking Questions
1. What mistake did the Coast soap team and Seelig’s student teams both make at the

beginning of their problem-solving process?
2. Describe how the student teams were limited by the initial problem definition. Outline

how the problem changed in the reframing and how that enabled the problem’s solution
space to be significantly expanded.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 186 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Adaptation Innovation• Convergent
thinking

• Structured
process

• Solutions that
improve upon
an existing idea
or process

• Divergent
thinking

• Flexible
process

• Solutions that
introduce novel
and diverse
concepts

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Creativity and Cognitive Style
Cognitive diversity reflects a form of personality variation based on cognitive style. Cognitive
styles (defined in Chapter 4) affect how we think, solve problems, and deal with change.
Kirton’s (2003) adaptation–innovation theory proposes that individual cognitive styles fall
on a sliding scale between adaption and innovation (see Figure 5.3), and an individual’s place-
ment on this continuum deeply affects their approach to problem-solving.

Figure 5.3: The adaption innovation continuum

Adaptation Innovation• Convergent
thinking
• Structured
process
• Solutions that
improve upon
an existing idea
or process
• Divergent
thinking
• Flexible
process
• Solutions that
introduce novel
and diverse
concepts

Group members with adaptive tendencies prefer problem-solving activities that are more
structured and tend toward convergent thinking. They also prefer solutions that improve on
an existing idea or process. Meanwhile, those with innovative tendencies prefer more flex-
ibility in process activities and tend toward divergent thinking. They prefer solutions that
introduce novel and diverse concepts (Kirton, 2003). Differences in cognitive style can create
tension over how to generate and select solutions and can stymie agreement on what consti-
tutes an optimal solution.

Cognitive style also impacts how we perceive creativity in others and in ourselves. As indi-
viduals with adaptive tendencies prefer structured process and convergent thinking, there
is a tendency to view them as very rational but limited in creativity. Likewise, individuals
with innovative tendencies are considered highly creative but prone to illogical reasoning
and flights of fancy. These viewpoints often become ingrained in members’ self-images, and
inhibit them from moving beyond these limited stereotypes. Both viewpoints are based on
the idea that creativity and rationality cannot go hand in hand. Yet, we know that complex
problems require both convergent and divergent thinking, and the idea that we can only asso-
ciate disparate frames by making innovative leaps is a myth as well.

Creativity can just as easily arise from a series of small adaptive changes—and it often does.
For example, Mario may notice a particular tree outside his office window, then move through
a cognitive sequence that goes something like: tree, treehouse, childhood backyard, Mama call-
ing me in to eat, home-cooked spaghetti carbonara. Mario then turns to his coworkers and
abruptly suggests Italian for lunch. Through unconscious incremental adaptation, Mario
forged a link between two remote and seemingly unrelated frames of reference: a tree and
spaghetti carbonara. Linking objects and ideas in this way is a common cognitive process.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 187 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Although many people think creativity is a special quality of personality or cognition, we all
engage in creative thinking daily (Benedek et al., 2012). It is important to view creativity
as a normal, natural, and useful process that everyone can access, since our ability to think
outside the box is impacted by whether we believe that we can do so and that our ideas are
worthwhile (Glassman, 1989). Regarding adaptive individuals as less creative and more ratio-
nal cuts both ways. The innovative tendency to make associative leaps can lead to seemingly
unconnected or even nonsensical ideas; however, these can also lead to concrete solutions.

The term creative problem solving implies that ideas are both innovative and useful. Useful-
ness in creativity, however, goes beyond the simple bounds of practical utility. It includes
activities, experiences, and ideas that may seem superficially whimsical, pointless, or even
bizarre, but which may significantly contribute to an effective solution. For example, during
a brainstorming session about how to remove ice buildup from power lines in the Cascade
mountain range, one team member at the utility company joked that they should train bears
to climb up and shake the ice loose (Glassman, 1989). Another suggested they use helicopters
to place honey pots on top of the poles to motivate the bears to climb up them. This seem-
ingly unproductive series of idea “jests” actually led to the final solution: periodically flying
helicopters over the telephone wires to create downdrafts that shake the ice buildup from the
lines, a technique that is still used today.

Regardless of individual cognitive style, group members can meaningfully contribute to cre-
ative and effective solutions—especially when they support each other by seeing the value in
their differences and working together. Labeling individual styles and efforts as uncreative or
impractical propagates a limiting stereotype and can contribute to social loafing, evaluation
apprehension, and lack of constructive communication. Group members may be hesitant to
share information or ideas because they are new to the group or to group work, or because
they fear being judged by others. They may also unintentionally inhibit one another by jump-
ing too quickly into critical analysis—shutting down the ideation process before it really gets
off the ground. To mitigate these issues, group leaders and managers use a range of group
ideation activities, most of which stem from Osborn’s traditional brainstorming process.

Group Ideation Activities
Group ideation activities have been applied in a wide variety of settings to help problem solv-
ers express and explore diverse ideas and avoid limiting solution options by coming to con-
clusions too rapidly. Most of these activities have their basis in brainstorming, developed by
Alex Osborn in 1939 in response to frustrating experiences with group ideation in the field
of creative advertising. Osborn specifically tried to address tendencies toward social loafing,
evaluation apprehension, and lack of constructive communication by instituting four basic
principles (Osborn, 1953):

1. Critical thinking takes a break. Brainstorming is about creating an idea generating
space; criticism and analysis are left at the door.

2. Freewheeling is encouraged. Since the idea is to stimulate unconstrained and uninhib-
ited thinking, communication space is given to any and all ideas, regardless of appar-
ent seriousness or practicality.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 188 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

3. First quantity, then quality. Brainstorming works on the premise that it takes a large
eclectic mix of ideas to come up with the one we later define as a winner. Since judg-
ing or analyzing ideas is put on hold until after the ideation session, quality is a moot
point. Groups are encouraged to think up and voice as many ideas as they can.

4. Combine, build, and innovate. Like players in a Mad Libs game, participants are
encouraged to combine and build on previous ideas to come up with something new
and interesting. This is known as idea piggybacking.

Unfortunately, brainstorming did not initially fulfill its promise of enhancing group creativ-
ity and ideation. Although brainstorming immediately gained popularity as a group ideation
activity, it was some years before researchers discovered that actively guiding the process
was the key to achieving consistently effective results (Kramer et al., 2001).

Guided Brainstorming
Traditional, nonguided brainstorming is known as free brainstorming. In free brainstorming,
a problem or issue is given to a group as a prompt, or focal point for stimulating ideas. The
group is then told to brainstorm ideas or solutions based on the prompt for a set period of
time (e.g., 20 to 40 minutes). Unfortunately, when initially attempted, free brainstorming left
groups vulnerable to process loss due to two of the primary pitfalls of group problem solv-
ing—evaluation apprehension and production blocking. In fact, this once caused researchers
to denounce brainstorming as an effective tool for interactive ideation (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987,
1991). Further study proved that with proper guidance, brainstorming does fulfill its promise
as an effective tool for group creativity (Kramer et al., 2001). This premise has given rise to
many variations on the technique. Let’s look at two popular variants: directed brainstorming
and brain writing.

Directed brainstorming involves giving the group a series of preconstructed prompts at spe-
cific time intervals during the session. While groups that engage in directed brainstorming
tend to outperform free brainstormers in terms of solution creativity and quality, researchers
have found that this positive outcome is relative to the timing of their prompt topic changes
(Santanen et al., 2004). In a comprehensive study of directed brainstorming, Santanen and
colleagues (2004) found that group creativity improved during sessions when prompt topics
consistently changed at either 8- or 2-minute intervals, but diminished when prompt topics
changed at 4-minute intervals (see Figure 5.4).

Why did group creativity suffer at the midpoint between 2 and 8 minutes? In group ideation
activities, creative inspiration is spurred by the juxtaposition and association of diverse
frames of reference (Benedek et al., 2012). Topic changes at 2 minutes offered group mem-
bers the highest exposure to diverse frames—and consequently the most inspiration. Eight-
minute topic changes offered them more time for idea piggybacking. The middle ground, at
4 minutes, offered neither high frame diversity nor enough time for piggyback ideas (San-
tanen et al., 2004). So what does this mean for creativity and group problem solving? Essen-
tially, effective ideation occurs when brainstorming groups have high exposure to diverse
frames and adequate time for idea piggybacking. This knowledge, coupled with the attempt
to eliminate production blocking, spawned another popular variant known as brain writing.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 189 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Prompt topics change
every 4 min.

Prompt topics change
every 2 min. or every 8 min.

Group
Creativity
Increases

Group
Creativity
Decreases

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

Brain writing is a guided brainstorming technique involving limited, written interaction. The
group is seated around a table, and each member is given a pen and a blank sheet of paper.
Once the initial prompt is given, each person writes down an idea or suggestion and then
passes the sheet to the person to their right. Each group member reads the sheet they were
given and uses it as a prompt for a new idea or suggestion before passing it along to the
next person. The cycle repeats until the end of the ideation session. Variations on this theme
include replacing the pass-it-along system with putting the papers in the middle of the table
and randomly selecting a new paper from the pile, and adding options such as responding to
previous ideas with either a new idea, a piggybacked idea, or a suggestion for improvement
or alteration. This technique can easily be adapted to online groups and chat forums, as well.
Brain writing is often integrated with directed brainstorming and other ideation strategies,
such as paradigm shift and idea mapping. Originally created as helpmeets for brainstorming,
paradigm shift and idea mapping have since been acknowledged as effective ideation strate-
gies in their own right and can be used with or without a group.

Paradigm Shift and Idea Mapping
Whereas brainstorming strategies focus on stimulating creativity by changing the external
conditions of ideation, paradigm shift and idea mapping are aimed at changing the internal
conditions—how we perceive and think about information and concepts during the ideation
process. A paradigm is a conceptual framework of ideas, values, theories, and assumptions
that affect our approach to a situation or problem. A very simple paradigm, for example,

Figure 5.4: Brainstorming and group creativity

The middle ground didn’t offer enough time or diversity for brainstorming groups to excel.

Prompt topics change
every 4 min.
Prompt topics change
every 2 min. or every 8 min.
Group
Creativity
Increases
Group
Creativity
Decreases

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 190 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 5.5 Creativity and Group Problem Solving

specifies that boats float on water. What if they floated on land? This paradigm shift could
be responsible for modern-day hovercrafts—boats that use air cushions to float on either
land or water. In paradigm shift ideation activities, members are asked to shift perspective
on a particular problem or prompt, as our example just illustrated. Paradigm shift can also
be used to consider a problem in distinct contexts. For example, using separate sessions to
brainstorm ideas for developing a marketing campaign that is (a) the most cost-effective,
(b) integrated with social media, and (c) eco-friendly. The best ideas from each of these ses-
sions can then be selected and combined to formulate a marketing campaign that encom-
passes all three of these elements.

Another popular way to use paradigm shift is by “flipping” the assumptions within brain-
storming prompts. For example, an initial brainstorming session could consist of this assump-
tion and prompt: Cars need gas, so brainstorm ways to make our vehicles more fuel-efficient.
However, flipping the assumption results in a new prompt: Cars do not need gas, so come up
with alternate fuel sources. This type of shift, known as 180-degree thinking, was behind the
development of hybrid and electric cars. Paradigm shift changes the way we perceive and
think about information and concepts before we ideate. Idea mapping, on the other hand, is
meant to be used after some initial ideation has occurred.

Idea mapping involves the spontaneous creation of a diagram that visually organizes the
relationships between all of the ideas or concepts we associate with a specific prompt (Far-
rand, Hussain, & Hennessy, 2002). In groups, idea mapping typically begins by placing a single
word or concept in the center of a white board. Related thoughts and ideas are called out and
placed radially around the prompt, with major ideas in direct connection and subordinate
ideas or information branching and rebranching away from the center. Idea mapping tangibly
illustrates concepts to help group members see connections between various ideas, concepts,
and information. This visual guide enables the following:

• Better use of cognitive resources: Group members do not have to spend mental
energy trying to internally recall ideas or recognize the connections between them.
Instead, they can focus on deepening their understanding of these concepts based
on their relatedness, and how they could further develop key ideas or solutions.

• Clearer vision in critical evaluation: Visually mapping the connections between infor-
mation and concepts enhances our ability to separate them into categories; remove
redundancies; recognize when ideas build on one another or are variations on a
theme; and allows us to compare and contrast their relative value.

• Greater potential for creative combinations: Creativity happens when we associate
ideas or concepts that are typically unconnected. Idea mapping helps this occur by
encouraging the group to make and see connections between ideas and concepts
and showing them in visual juxtaposition. Acting within a mindset of finding con-
nections, group members can more easily associate concepts from relatively uncon-
nected areas of their map.

Due to these benefits, idea mapping if often used as an in-between step that occurs after brain-
storming to enhance the next session of ideation or evaluation. Idea mapping is used across
many settings to enhance conceptual understanding, evaluation, and creative idea generation
(Murley, 2007; Shih, Nguyen, Hirano, Redmiles, & Hayes, 2009). Creative ideation in groups
can be a highly effective tool in complex problem solving, particularly those that require cre-
ativity and innovation. Due the high flow of information during group ideation sessions, how-
ever, these activities do have their own special drawback: information overload.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 191 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

Information Overload
Groups and teams that participate in brainstorming and other ideation activities need to be
mindful of information overload, a cognitive dysfunction that occurs when groups generate
so many ideas that the information becomes overwhelming and people begin to block it out
and stop paying attention. Information overload can lead to feelings of detachment, weari-
ness, anxiety, or irritation with the group process, and by association, with other members.
Members who are still functionally contributing may feel they are over contributing to the
group discussion. This can result in a few ideas dominating the discussion, which dampens
communication and ideation if other members decide to stop contributing. It can also fos-
ter resentment if a perception grows that overloaded members are free riding. All of these
reactions can be detrimental to group creativity, problem solving, and process in general. To
mitigate information overload, experts suggest structuring group ideation activities into an
alternating pattern of interactive and noninteractive intervals to let participants process and
reflect on the ideas they are generating (Kohn, Paulus, & Chois, 2011).

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

Problems come in all shapes and sizes. Finding lost car keys, dealing with a scheduling con-
flict, organizing financial resources to pay for a new home, and designing a self-driving car
all require problem solving. Contemporary organizations use problem solving continuously,
to resolve simple snags in everyday business processes, deal with more complex interper-
sonal issues within their workforce, and foster the innovation required to stay competitive
in the global marketplace. Throughout this process, decision-making is a silent but sig-
nificant partner. Although all problem solving inherently requires decision-making, group
decision-making is a complex process deserving of its own detailed examination. We explore
this topic in Chapter 6, examining the process by which group decisions are made, and how
group members select one option over another.

Chapter Summary

• Complex problems often require a combination of convergent and divergent
thinking.

• Groups are typically better at addressing complex problems than individuals—even
those with superlative KSAs.

• The major advantage of working in groups is the ability to access a broad range of
collective KSAs and experience.

• By engaging in collaborative performance, groups share assets and resources,
broaden diversity and range of approach, and generate enhanced comprehension
and optimization, both in process and for the final product or outcome.

• Problem solving occurs in a four-stage cycle. This becomes a circular process for
complex problems, which tend to have a series of smaller problems and issues
nested within them.

• The group problem-solving process can be broken down into seven steps:
1. Recognizing the problem
2. Framing the problem
3. Generating solutions
4. Testing solutions
5. Selecting a solution
6. Putting the solution into effect
7. Checking the solution

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 192 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

• Evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and destructive criticism are the
major pitfalls of the group problem-solving process, all of which can contribute to
and be worsened by lack of participation and poor communication.

• Problem framing is a critical factor in determining the number and quality of poten-
tial solutions, the time needed to generate them, and the ability of the team to find
a viable solution. The way in which a problem is framed can also impact the group’s
ability to seek creative solutions.

• Cognitive style profoundly affects our approach to creative problem solving and the
way we view others and ourselves in terms of creative ability.

• In truth, creativity is a normal, natural, and useful process that everyone can access.
Regardless of individual cognitive style, all group members can meaningfully con-
tribute to creative and effective solutions.

• Supporting and valuing cognitive diversity is key. Labeling individual styles and
efforts as uncreative or impractical propagates a limiting stereotype and can
contribute to social loafing, evaluation apprehension, and lack of constructive
communication.

• The basic interaction principles of traditional brainstorming were built to deflect the
major obstacles to group ideation and creativity, but brainstorming is most effective
when properly structured and guided. Using brainstorming in tandem with other
ideation activities and tactics is useful as well.

• While brainstorming focuses on stimulating creativity by changing the external con-
ditions of ideation, paradigm shift and idea mapping are aimed at changing internal
conditions—how we perceive and think about information and concepts during the
ideation process.

• All group ideation activities are vulnerable to information overload. To mitigate this,
experts suggest constructing group ideation activities into an alternating pattern of
interactive and noninteractive intervals that allow both ideation and reflection.

Posttest

1. Problems that are straightforward, need no complex interpretation, and have defini-
tively right and wrong answers are classified as __________.
a. wicked problems
b. defined problems
c. ideation activities
d. framing problems

2. Classic brainstorming principles encourage all of the following EXCEPT __________.
a. whimsical suggestions
b. multiple solution options
c. critical analysis
d. idea piggybacking

3. __________ represent major pitfalls in the group problem-solving process.
a. Social loafing, convergent thinking, and skill diversity
b. Production blocking, problem framing, and miscommunication
c. Evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and poor communication
d. Conflict and communication breakdown

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 193 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

4. The problem-solving cycle applies to __________.
a. wicked problems
b. defined problems
c. large problems
d. all problems

5. There are __________ steps in the problem-solving process.
a. four
b. eight
c. two
d. seven

6. __________ may be the single most impactful element in determining the number and
quality of potential solutions, the time needed to generate them, and the ability of
the team to find a viable solution.
a. Creative ideation
b. Convergent thinking
c. Framing the problem
d. Solution optimization

7. Complex problem solving requires all of the following EXCEPT __________.
a. convergent thinking
b. divergent thinking
c. conscientious problem framing
d. teamwork

8. Groups help mitigate our cognitive limitations on __________.
a. convergent thinking
b. problem definition
c. information processing
d. wicked problems

9. In the conceptualization stage, it is particularly important to __________ before moving
into ideation.
a. recognize the problem
b. define the problem
c. select an ideation activity
d. identify the solution space

10. All of the following are true about problem definition EXCEPT __________.
a. it has a major impact on the solution-generating process
b. it is part of the problem-framing process
c. it outlines the basic need a problem represents
d. it represents a problem parameter that cannot be changed

Answers: b, c, c, d, d, c, d, c, b, d.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 194 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources
Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Explain the concept of “opportunistic surveillance” and its significance in the prob-
lem solving process.

2. Section 5.5 offered an example of everyday creativity that showed how a tree could
be linked to spaghetti carbonara. Recall and describe one instance in which you con-
sciously or unconsciously established a link between remote and seemingly unre-
lated frames of reference.

3. Watch Tom Wujec’s Got a Wicked Problem? First, Tell Me How You Make Toast. Then,
using the information and concepts from this chapter:
a. Identify the point at which idea piggybacking began to occur within the problem-

solving groups and explain its significance.
b. Explain why working in complete silence fostered group effectiveness in the

groups shown.
c. Explain why the groups developed more effective instruction models for toast

making than individuals.

Additional Resources
Links

• Collaboration Beats Smarts in Group Problem Solving:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130247631

• 4 Ways to Brush Up Your Problem-Solving Skills:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/barbaraarmstrong/2012/10/24/
painting-and-problem-solving-four-lessons-from-my-fall-retreat/#3a713a177e12

Videos

• Dance vs. PowerPoint: A Modest Proposal:
https://www.ted.com/talks/john_bohannon_dance_vs_powerpoint_a_modest_pro-
posal

• How to Manage for Collective Creativity:

• Creative Problem Solving in the Face of Extreme Limits:
https://www.ted.com/talks/navi_radjou_creative_problem_solving_in_the_face_of_
extreme_limits

• Doodlers, Unite!

• What Do We Do With All This Big Data:

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. In complex problem solving, each new problem that arises within the larger
problem-solving process follows the four-stage cycle from beginning to end.
Because of this, many view complex problem solving as a circular process,
wherein the stages flow continuously and sequentially into one another for
as long as the problem solvers remain engaged in the process.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 195 8/19/16 9:35 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130247631

http://www.forbes.com/sites/barbaraarmstrong/2012/10/24/painting-and-problem-solving-four-lessons-from-my-fall-retreat/#3a713a177e12

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

2. False. Production blocking occurs when members are distracted from their think-
ing processes or unable to verbalize their ideas as they occur, resulting
in ideas being suppressed or lost. This tends to occur in the fast-paced or
energetic discussions that typically surround group interactions involving
ideation, conflict, and debate.

3. True. Because they have access to a greater diversity of expertise, perspective, and
approach, groups tend to be better at solving complex problems than indi-
viduals—even individuals who have special knowledge, skills, and abilities.

4. False. While these two cognitive problem-solving styles are near polar opposites,
they work surprisingly well together, and complex problem solving calls for a
unique blend of both.

5. False. The myth that innovative thinking cannot be taught but is inborn would have
us believe that creativity is a special quality of personality or cognition, but
we all engage in creative thinking every day.

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Defined problems are characterized as being straightforward, without need for
complex interpretation, and having solutions that are demonstrably repeatable and
correct.

2. The principles of brainstorming encourage freewheeling ideation of as many ideas
as possible, including the whimsical or even bizarre. However, the group may gener-
ate so many ideas that members experience information overload, begin trying to
block out too much information, and stop paying attention.

3. Evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and poor communication are the
major pitfalls of the group problem-solving process.

4. The four-stage life cycle sequence represents a broad view of the problem-solving
process that can be applied to problems of any type.

5. There are seven steps to the problem-solving process: recognizing the problem,
framing the problem, generating solutions, testing solutions, selecting a solution,
putting the solution into effect, and checking the solution.

6. Problem framing describes the process of examining and clarifying the essential
nature of a given problem. This process generates the problem definition and may be
the single most impactful element in determining the number and quality of poten-
tial solutions, the time needed to generate them, and the ability of the team to find a
viable solution.

7. While teamwork often results in higher quality solutions to complex problems, it is
not required—individuals can and do solve complex problems. What complex prob-
lem solving does require is a mix of convergent and divergent thinking, and because
the way in which we frame a problem dictates our interpretation, problem defini-
tion, and solution space, conscientious problem framing is critical for success.

8. Just as working with others can help us perform more physical labor than we could
accomplish working alone, groups enable us to carry heavier mental loads. Humans
have a finite capacity to process information. Working collaboratively allows group
members to join forces to mitigate this problem.

9. Recognizing the problem comes first, in the generation stage. In conceptualization,
we begin to address the problem. While selecting an ideation activity can be help-
ful, it is important to define the problem before ideation so that we understand the
nature of the problem, what we are trying to accomplish in solving it, and what our
solution space includes.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 196 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

10. Clarifying or constructing the problem definition is part of the problem-framing
process. Problem definition has a major impact on the solution-generating process
because it outlines the basic needs a problem represents, indicates parameters, and
sets fundamental values and assumptions. Problem definition can be reevaluated
and changed by simply reframing the problem.

Key Terms

adaptation–innovation theory A theory
that asserts that individual cognitive styles
fall on a sliding scale between adaption
and innovation; where a person is placed
on this continuum deeply affects his or her
approach to problem solving.

brainstorming A group ideation activity
that features spontaneously developed ideas
and solutions that influence and build on
further contributions.

brain writing A facilitated brainstorm-
ing technique that involves limited, written
interaction.

complex problems A series of nested prob-
lems that are neither concretely defined nor
wicked.

conceptualization The second stage of the
problem-solving cycle that encompasses the
period in which effort is spent to understand
the nature and scope of a problem and using
this knowledge as a basis to imagine and
formulate solutions.

constructive criticism Criticism that
points out errors, flaws, and weaknesses in
members’ task-related ideas, contributions,
and efforts for the purpose of strengthening
these. It often includes suggestions that aid
personal development and performance.

convergent thinking Thinking done in a
cognitive problem-solving style that involves
using existing knowledge, patterns, and criti-
cal thinking to derive the single most correct
answer from a finite set of options.

defined problems Straightforward prob-
lems that do not require complex interpreta-
tion and have solutions that are demonstra-
bly correct and repeatable—in other words,
those that have definitively right and wrong
answers.

destructive criticism Criticism that points
out errors, flaws, weaknesses, and other per-
ceived negatives in members’ task-related
ideas, contributions, and efforts without
regard for strengthening these; it tears down
personal contributions and performance
without offering any assistance to build
them back up.

directed brainstorming A guidance tech-
nique that involves giving the group a series
of preconstructed prompts at specific time
intervals during the session.

divergent thinking A cognitive problem-
solving style that involves combining exist-
ing knowledge or frames of reference in new
or unexpected ways to produce a potentially
infinite set of solution options.

evaluation apprehension The fear of
being negatively perceived and evaluated by
others.

generation The first stage in the problem-
solving cycle in which problems are dis-
covered and recognized but not yet clearly
defined or understood.

group problem solving A social process
wherein group members seek a solution to
a problem or an optimal path to a desired
outcome or goal.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 197 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 5 Summary and Resources

idea mapping Ideation activity involving
the spontaneous creation of a diagram that
visually organizes the relationships between
all of the ideas or concepts we associate with
a specific prompt.

idea piggybacking An ideation technique
in which participants combine and build on
previous ideas.

ideation The process of generating ideas.

ideation activities Exercises and activi-
ties that foster creativity and help generate
unique ideas.

implementation The fourth stage of the
problem-solving cycle, characterized by
activities that put the team’s solution into
action and monitor the results.

information overload A cognitive dysfunc-
tion that occurs when people defensively
block out overwhelming information and
lose focus and attention.

optimization The third stage of the
problem-solving cycle, encompassing
efforts to analyze and critique ideas and
solutions from the conceptualization period.

paradigm shift Ideation activities in which
members are asked to shift perspective on a
particular problem or prompt.

problem definition The core issue or
problem that needs to be addressed to find a
desired solution.

problem framing The process of examin-
ing and clarifying the essential nature of a
given problem, its associated elements, and
context.

problem solving The complex cognitive
and physical process of seeking a solution
to a problem or finding a path to a desired
outcome or goal.

production blocking A dysfunctional
dynamic that occurs when members are
distracted from their thinking processes or
unable to verbalize their ideas as they occur,
resulting in ideas being suppressed or lost.

prompt A focal point for idea stimulation.

reframing A shift in perspective that
involves reevaluating and reinterpreting the
problem definition.

social loafing The tendency for some
members to work below capacity when in a
group.

solution space An abstract representation
of all the ideas and solutions that can poten-
tially lead to a desirable outcome.

wicked problems Multilevel problems that
change according to viewpoint.

cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 198 8/19/16 9:35 AM

199

6Decision Making

monkeybusiness/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Correlate individual and group decision making and explain the fundamental difference in their processes.

• Outline the major elements of sensemaking in the group decision-making process.

• Identify the major categories of social decision schemes and conditions for their advantageous use.

• Explain how bias and social influence become determining factors in decision quality.

• Describe the major dysfunctions that can occur in the decision-making process when social influence is
detached from critical thinking.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 199 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Introduction

Pretest

1. Making decisions is a specialized form of problem solving.
2. Consensus building is not relevant when group decisions are achieved by voting.
3. Decision making differs from problem solving in that problem framing is not an issue in

decision making.
4. Groupthink enables higher quality decision making in groups.
5. Group decision-making discussions tend to naturally expand collective knowledge by

sharing little-known and expert information regarding the decision problem.

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction
Molly, the head of human resources at a midsized publishing company, is interested in
instituting work-from-home days for the organization’s employees. She has worked at
other companies with successful work-from-home policies and thinks a similar policy
might benefit her current organization. Molly must decide whether to suggest instituting
the new policy at a company board meeting in 3 months’ time. The issue is complex, and
she decides to assist her decision-making process by putting together a small advisory
team to explore the idea from multiple angles and examine variations on how such a
policy could be successfully implemented.

To this end, Molly selects seven people—four midlevel managers and three profession-
als—to serve on the team, all from areas that will be affected by the new policy if it is
adopted. Two of the managers (Tomas and Gerald) have been with the company for
several years, and Molly has chosen them to participate in groups and committees in the
past. One of the other managers, Casey, originally suggested the idea of instituting work-
from-home days to Molly and is aware of her favorable view of such policies. The other
four members of the team—the remaining manager (Jose) and the three professionals
(Alicia, Hae, and Michael)—have never before been asked to consider the establishment
of a company-wide policy and therefore feel honored they were chosen to participate in
the process.

Having previously served in similar groups, Tomas and Gerald immediately have valuable
input on how to organize team meetings, and they set performance goals for the coming
weeks. Everybody is pleased and impressed with their obvious experience and helpfulness,
and by the end of the first meeting, Tomas and Gerald have emerged as the team’s natural
leaders. When they initiate discussion of the issue at the next team meeting, Tomas and
Gerald immediately express their own preferences for how to structure a work-from-home
policy. Having found that they are in agreement with each other, they put up a united
front and dominate the discussion. Hae, Michael, and Jose all show their support for
Tomas and Gerald’s ideas, as they want to appear involved and do not want to create any
unnecessary conflict that might come from questioning leaders who have thus far proved
knowledgeable. They feel privileged to be part of the group and do not want to risk their
involvement by offering divergent opinions.

The other professional, Alicia, once had a bad experience with a corporation that allowed
employees to work from home. That organization’s policy was vaguely written, which

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 200 8/19/16 9:34 AM

allowed less motivated employees to take advantage of it. When Alicia hears Gerald’s
policy preference, which is strikingly similar to her last company’s, she shares this experi-
ence. When she states that the policy allowed for abuses, Tomas cuts her off and dismisses
her input, claiming that no one in this company would behave that way. Since no one else
disputes this statement, and Tomas is senior to Alicia, she feels rebuked and obligated to
let the matter drop. She chooses to withhold her opinions and suggestions moving for-
ward and simply support whatever the group decides.

Casey, the team member who originally suggested a work-from-home policy to Molly,
comes to all the committee meetings with the latest research regarding such policies.
However, because Casey feels responsible for proposing the idea, the information he has
gathered from outside sources is all positive and generally supports decisions already
made by the team. Casey also makes an effort to speak with other employees about a
work-from-home policy, but he keeps the more negative comments and suggestions to
himself instead of sharing them with the group.

Molly periodically attends meetings to get a feel for what the team members are discuss-
ing and to keep an eye on their progress. Although she simply observes these meetings,
she has noticed some worrying dynamics. First, Tomas and Gerald have apparently domi-
nated the team and are steering it in a single direction, without really evaluating other
options. Molly notices that Casey’s input is uniformly positive, and she wonders if the pre-
ferred option is getting any real critical analysis. Although she’s not sure what happened
in the meetings she missed, Molly notes that Hae, Michael, Jose, and Alicia rarely speak up
during meetings and never offer new or contradictory opinions. Halfway to the decision
deadline, Molly steps in to see if she can help the team break away from these negative
dynamics. She tells the team that she’d like to check in on what they’ve come up with so
far by consulting with each member individually, then all together as a group.

In the individual interviews, Molly draws out Alicia’s concerns, finds out that Casey has
been biasing his input by only presenting positive information, and learns that Tomas and
Gerald have been leading the team to explore only their own initial suggestions. She also
learns that Hae, Michael, and Jose privately feel that Alicia was treated poorly and wish
that the team had spent more time considering alternative options. Each, however, feels
that they are alone in this view and that the majority of the group is happy with Tomas
and Gerald’s leadership and their suggestions. In effect, the team has a one-sided focus on
the positive aspects of a single policy.

In the group consultation, Molly allows the team members to present their findings
together, and she praises them for their work so far. She then gives them some construc-
tive feedback and direction for the second half of their exploration process. She says she
has a good feel for the pros regarding the policy they have explored but would like to
have at least two different alternatives to which to compare them. She would also like
each member of the team to play devil’s advocate—which she hopes will illuminate the
negatives of each policy option. She suggests that the team assign different members to
explore each side of three distinct policies. As the team has seven members, she suggests
that Casey continue as liaison to other company employees, gathering both positive and
negative input to support his team. Molly says she’d like to see their final presentation in
debate form, and she thanks the team members for their invaluable input. She ends the
meeting by telling them that they are truly helping her make an informed decision and
that if she goes to the board to suggest the new policy, she will take a written presenta-
tion of their findings—and credit them to the team.

Introduction

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 201 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

Chapter 6 focuses on the process of group decision making, the methods by which
groups collectively seek an outcome, and the major influences on decision quality and
process dynamics. We begin with a general overview of the decision-making process
and the differences and relationship between individual and group decision making.

6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview
In Chapter 5 we learned that problem solving is the process of seeking a solution to a given
problem. Decision making is a specialized form of problem solving in which an individual or
group chooses between two or more known options. Rather than discovering or generating
ideas, information, or processes, solving a decision problem primarily involves evaluation.
When evaluating an option, individuals make a judgment about its value; when making a deci-
sion, they compare the relative value of different options and choose the one most valuable
to the situation at hand. You probably engage in decision making every day. For example, you
may decide to save money by bringing lunch to work instead of buying it, or to seek recogni-
tion from your manager by volunteering for a special assignment instead of keeping quiet. Of
course, we could just flip a coin, or choose one option over another based on superficial fac-
tors. In such cases, however, the quality of the decision’s outcome—our choice—is largely left
to chance. While this style of decision making is relatively quick and easy, this strategy cannot
be relied on to consistently generate quality decisions.

At the most basic level, quality decisions depend on one’s ability to acquire and use decision-
relevant knowledge to critically analyze and evaluate options. This explanation is deceptively
simple, however. Acquiring and using decision-relevant knowledge takes skill and effort.
Decision makers are not always gifted with the time or resources to comprehensively inves-
tigate and evaluate decision options. Regardless of time, however, a decision must still be
made. Next, we examine two distinctive approaches to individual decision making, the rela-
tionship between these approaches, and the factors that encourage decision makers to lean
more heavily toward one approach or the other.

Rational Versus Intuitive Decision Making
Individuals approach decision making on two distinct levels: rational and intuitive. Rational
decision making is characterized by the use of critical thinking and deductive reasoning to
make value-maximizing choices that satisfy the bounds of situational constraints (Shafir &
LeBoeuf, 2002). Rational decision making is the aspect of human nature that leads people
to question the differences between various options, evaluate their relative value given the
decision’s context, and prove that one option is better than the rest. Rational decision making
requires individuals to seek comprehensive information about each option and use it to criti-
cally evaluate and rank the options’ relative values based on logical expectation and fact. This
process is stymied, however, when information is not available or there is not enough time
to allow for comprehensive information gathering, processing, and evaluation. In such cases,
many people rely instead on intuition.

Intuitive decision making involves making choices based on unconscious associations
between disparate pieces of information; such choices tend to be based in experiential and
emotional biases (Kruglanski & Gigerenzer, 2011; Dane & Pratt, 2007). Intuitive decision
making is the aspect of human nature that urges people to trust and follow their “gut instinct.”

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 202 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

Throughout our lifetime, experiences become imprinted in our memory, embedded with spe-
cific emotional, psychological, and physical responses that can be unconsciously triggered
when we encounter stimuli that remind us of those past experiences. When we intuitively feel
one option is better than another, we are unconsciously accessing past experiences that share
some similarity with our current situation. In the case study that heads the chapter, for exam-
ple, Alicia’s bad experience with a policy similar to the one suggested by Tomas and Gerald
caused her to have an immediate negative reaction. Alicia could be right in objecting to that
particular policy; however, good decision-making strategy would call for her to back up her
intuitive response with a rational investigation of the potential positive and negative aspects
of instituting that policy in a new setting. Effective decisions tend to combine the best aspects
of the rational and intuitive approaches, supporting facts with experience and vice versa.

Rational and intuitive decision making are both natural extensions of basic learning; they
are survival mechanisms that enable us to better understand our world, learn from previ-
ous experience, assess current situations for negativity or danger, and respond appropriately.
Although all decisions represent some combination of rational and intuitive decision making,
specific contexts may dictate the use of one or the other. Individual decision makers tend to be
“rule followers” and as such match their decision-making approach to situations as directed
by their occupational identities (March, 1994). Occupational identities reflect internalized
performance, role, and behavioral expectations based on social roles, status, occupational
habits, and internally and externally imposed rules and norms (Kielhofner, 2002, 2008,
Phelan & Kinsella, 2009; Skorikov & Vondracek, 2011). They provide the basic foundation for
one’s approach to decision making, the behavior and activities regarded as appropriate and
necessary, and procedural rules and norms. An organization can include employees who have
very different occupational identities.

As an example, consider a cost analyst and a graphic designer who work for the same orga-
nization. The analyst examines the company’s costs and seeks ways to improve operational
efficiency. The designer is responsible for product branding, advertising, and packaging. Both
may work for the same organization, but their role expectations and behaviors will be very
different. Cost analysts require a strong background in accounting, for example, and are often
certified management accountants. Their job tasks demand critical thinking and rational
decision making based on hard facts. Deviating from logically proven patterns and proce-
dures is not the norm. Graphic designers, on the other hand, require strong artistic ability and
may or may not be formally trained. They are expected to engage in creative problem solving
and seek innovative solutions based on their unique personal perspectives. While rational
decision making is part of this process, intuition is valued as well. Both employees are valued
for their abilities, which they each integrate into their occupational identity. The decision-
making approach associated with their job requirements, along with its associated behaviors,
becomes habitual.

Occupational identities can also be attached to specific types of task groups. For example,
committee members are expected to represent a particular viewpoint, ideology, or larger
affiliation and to generate collective decision outcomes through a formal voting process
(Laughlin, 2011). Likewise, a fact-finding commission would be expected to follow behav-
ioral and procedural norms associated with investigative research and critical thinking and
take a primarily rational approach to decision making. Specific task types and acknowledged
or habitual expertise can also shape occupational identities and affect the decision-making
approach. Individuals undertaking tasks that require creative judgments, or those who have

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 203 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

been repeatedly rewarded or praised for following their instincts, tend to be more con-
sciously focused on intuitive decision making; they allow the rational dimension to take place
behind the scenes. Understanding how occupational identities influence the decision-making
approach allows individuals to consciously adjust their decision-making process to make it
more effective. This becomes increasingly important as more people are added to the mix and
the decision-making process becomes more complex. Next, we examine the value of group
decision making.

The Value of

Group Decision Making

Group decision making represents a social process wherein group members generate a col-
lective decision outcome by integrating individual preferences or proclivities for action and
response (Laughlin, 2011; Glynn & Barr, 2003). Although group decision making is more com-
plex and time-consuming than individual decision making, groups remain a standard tool for
effecting quality decisions across all levels of organizational hierarchy (Stasser & Dietz-Uhler,
2001). The value in using groups for decision making comes from their ability to pool relevant
KSAs in order to:

1. enhance the ability to critically analyze and evaluate alternatives by sharing and vet-
ting information and expertise, testing members’ objectivity and bias, and identify-
ing and addressing deficiency or errors in information and assumptions; and

2. ground intuitive responses to specific alternatives by testing individual expectations
and assumptions against those held by other group members.

As a result of these benefits, groups have an advantage over individual decision makers
because:

• groups are better at coping with complexity (Vroom, 2003);
• groups tend to have a more accurate perceptions of people and situations (Ruscher

& Hammer, 2006);
• groups can more rapidly seek out and find task-relevant information (Lazonder,

2005); and
• groups tend to generate higher quality judgments, estimates, and choices (Stasser &

Dietz-Uhler, 2001).

People who are involved in a decision-making process are also more open to any attitude or
behavioral changes the decision may require (Lewin, 1943, 1951). Group decision making
is therefore a preferred method when the decision outcome will introduce change to those
involved and for high-stakes decisions that require buy-in from employees (such as imple-
menting new company-wide software or adopting a new business practice).

As organizational environs have moved across virtual and international boundaries, business
processes—and the decisions that fuel organizational progress and health—have become
more complex. Groups are increasingly tasked with addressing these issues, and group deci-
sion making occurs at every level of an organization. Table 6.1 shows the various types of
group decisions made at different organizational levels.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 204 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

Table 6.1: Decisions and organizational level

Level Areas of effect Examples

Top managers and
executive groups

Decisions are reflected in
organizational strategy,
policy, and process.

• Which products or services to offer
• Whether to explore new market or

resource opportunities
• Whether to acquire or dispose of assets

and acquisitions
• Where to locate business offices and

production facilities
• What should determine an organization’s

stance on employee diversity

Midlevel to lower level
management groups

Decisions affect how
strategic decisions, policy,
and business processes are
carried out.

• Hiring, firing, and promotion decisions
• Individual job assignments
• Whether and how to use groups or teams
• Orchestrating organizational mandates

and initiatives

Work groups and teams Decisions pertain to task-
related problem solving and
coordinating group effort to
accomplish goals.

• Setting agendas and performance goals
• Delegating tasks and assigning roles
• Coordinating meetings and work

schedules
• Reaching agreement on how to frame a

problem and whether to select one option
or course of action over others

Decisions made within organizational groups often support one another. As shown in Table
6.1, midlevel to lower level managers make decisions on how to implement the organiza-
tional strategy or policy decisions made by top managers and executives. For example, a new
policy decision from an organization’s leadership may call for employee diversity training.
Before this can be implemented, however, several decisions must be made. These include
selecting training groups, setting aside time and space, selecting what type of specific train-
ing and training providers, and deciding how employees will be informed about these. Below
management, working groups and teams decide how to accomplish their goals, organize
their activities, engage in interactive processes, and resolve problems and issues. The value
of group decision making does not lessen the value of individual decision making, however.
Indeed, individual decision making is a critical part of the group decision-making process. We
explore this vital connection in the next section.

Correlating Individual and Group Process
The term preference has various meanings that depend on context. When it comes to decision
making, individual preference refers to a personal inclination to choose one option over
others, as the best among available options (Stasser, 1999). When engaging in solitary deci-
sion making, individual preference becomes the decision outcome. The critical metaprocess
that drives individual decision making is the evaluation of decision options in order to choose
between them. As Figure 6.1 illustrates, group decision making includes all of the process
areas encompassed by individual decision making but additionally requires the integration of
members’ individual preferences into a collective decision outcome.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 205 8/19/16 9:34 AM

Group Decision Making

Accessing
Resources

Defining
Individual
Preference

Decision
Implementation

Sensemaking
Decision
Integration

Individual Decision Making

Sensemaking Accessing
Resources

Defining
Individual
Preference
Decision
Implementation
Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview

As Figure 6.1 portrays, the steps that make up individual and group decision making are nearly
identical. Consider the first stage as an example: In both cases, sensemaking (described in the
next section) involves processes that enable us to “make sense” of the decision problem and
our relative roles in solving it. It is the addition of social interaction to each of the stages that
truly differentiates and defines the group decision process. Although individual and group
decision making are often thought of as discrete processes, they share a profound connection.
Group decision making involves integrating individual preferences or proclivities for action
and response to generate a collective decision outcome that all group members can accept and
support. Before this integration occurs, however, individual members must come to their own
conclusions about potential options and articulate their preference for a particular outcome.

In group decision making, individual preferences can be influenced and changed via social
interaction and by accessing the total KSAs within the group. Group decision outcomes
develop as members negotiate and coconstruct a shared understanding of the problem, artic-
ulate decision-making needs and ways to address them, and decide how to integrate indi-
vidual preferences and choices to generate an outcome that is supported by the whole group
(Glynn & Barr, 2003). Effective decision making requires that:

• resources (including group member KSAs) are effectively utilized;
• the decision outcome is produced in a timely manner and within designated time

constraints;
• the decision outcome is able to garner support and be successfully implemented;

Figure 6.1: Individual versus group decision making

Group decision making adds an additional step—decision integration—to the individual decision-
making process.

Group Decision Making
Accessing
Resources
Defining
Individual
Preference
Decision
Implementation
Sensemaking
Decision
Integration
Individual Decision Making
Sensemaking Accessing
Resources
Defining
Individual
Preference
Decision
Implementation

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 206 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

• the decision outcome is of high quality and based on sound reasoning and an
informed process; and

• in groups, efficacy and process are improved, or at least not damaged, by the experi-
ence (Johnson & Johnson, 2013).

The remaining sections touch on each of these points as they explore key elements of the
group decision-making process.

6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision
Problem
Decision making requires knowledge regarding the decision’s context, its options, and its
desired outcome. In other words, it involves understanding why we are making a decision,
what we what are choosing between, and how the various alternatives relate to the desired
outcome. To make an effective decision, we must also be able to identify and access certain
resources that can inform our choice. Finally, we must have some kind of plan for how we will
address the decision-making process. Sensemaking is the crucial first step in individual and
group decision-making process. It familiarizes the group with the decision problem via three
elements: framing the decision problem, addressing resource requirements, and selecting a
mode of engagement.

Our opening case study illustrated how an individual decision maker like Molly can augment
her decision-making process by getting help from a group. In this case, individual and group
sensemaking were separate, yet entwined. Both Molly and her advisory team had to deal
with the three elements of sensemaking—framing the decision problem, addressing resource
requirements, and selecting a mode of engagement—in order to progress through the pro-
cess. The following paragraphs examine these elements in more depth.

Framing the Decision Problem
To generate a quality decision, it is essential that we gather information on the decision con-
text and various options. It is also critical that we develop our understanding of the nature of
the choice and the expectations associated with a successful outcome. This aspect of sense-
making is known as framing the decision problem. In group decision making, framing the deci-
sion problem also involves developing a shared understanding regarding context, options, the
nature of the choice, and expectations surrounding the collective decision outcome. As in any
kind of problem solving, problem framing can profoundly affect the group’s decision-making
process and outcome (Posner, 1973; Bardwell, 1991). In our opening case study, Molly chose
to assist her decision-making process by assigning an advisory team to explore and evaluate
the complex issue of adopting a work-from-home policy. The decision to do so is an outcome
of Molly’s initial framing of the decision problem.

In considering the issue, Molly rapidly determines that there are actually two decision prob-
lems to solve here, one subordinate to the other:

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 207 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

1. Should the company adopt a work-from-home policy? This is the main issue, and
should the answer be no, the second decision problem becomes obsolete. However,
if it is determined that the company should adopt a work-from-home policy, the sec-
ond decision problem becomes a crucial element.

2. What type of work-from-home policy will be most beneficial to the organization?

Each of these questions is inherently complex. For example, what ratio of potential benefits
of such a policy to potential effort required to implement it constitutes a yes or no answer?
Likewise, does “beneficial” to the organization simply mean most easily implemented for
immediate gains within the existing organizational structure? Or does it mean implementing
a plan that will, in the long term, overhaul most of the organization’s existing structure and
policies? (For example, such a long-term plan might allow the organization to expand the
work-from-home concept and possibly adopt other workplace strategies that take advantage
of the work-from-home infrastructure, such as moving a large portion of the business online
and working in virtual teams.)

It’s clear to Molly that the complexity of these issues will require comprehensive research and
evaluation. Although she’s excited by the possibility of adopting a work-from-home policy,
she doesn’t have the time to effectively address the issue by herself. She also feels that a wider
range of knowledge and perspectives would offer the best critical analysis of the different
options. Finally, Molly is aware that adopting a work-from-home policy would significantly
impact the day-to-day practice and work habits of those involved—she’d like get some input
from the employees likely to be affected before she makes a decision. Framing the decision
problem helps Molly determine that an advisory team can help her make an effective decision
and directs her selection of team members from areas that will be impacted if the policy is
instituted.

Once the team is put together, the team members pursue their own framing. Since Molly has
put together the team for the express purpose of advising her on this issue, her initial briefing
of the team plays a large part in their framing process. Molly describes the team’s purpose
and sets project parameters. She introduces the team members to both aspects of the deci-
sion problem and asks that they explore and evaluate each, regardless of their recommended
answer for the first. She lets them know that their final outcome will serve to advise her deci-
sion-making process, rather than be implemented as a decision itself. As the team moves into
its own framing process, it identifies several key points from Molly’s briefing:

1. The team must thoroughly explore and evaluate both issues.
2. Molly will be the final judge of the situation, so rather than dithering over the mean-

ing of “beneficial to the company,” the team should focus on analyzing the pros and
cons regarding the adoption of various work-from-home policies.

3. The team’s primary task is to inform Molly’s decision-making process. Therefore, its
progress must be well documented, and its final presentation and suggestions must
include concrete evidence and well-supported reasoning that Molly can easily recog-
nize, sort through, and absorb.

As the team’s purpose is subordinate to Molly’s needs, its framing process is heavily based on
how Molly frames the decision problem. Its task—to advise her on a specific issue—is con-
crete and does not require reframing. The team’s framing process takes on a life of its own,

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 208 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

however, by providing critical guidance for how its tasks will be carried out and how its final
outcome will be presented. By framing the decision problem, both Molly and the team gain
an understanding of the nature and needs of the decision problem. This allows them to more
easily address their resource requirements.

Before we examine the next element, however, let’s take moment to reflect on decision prob-
lem framing. There are several key takeaways regarding decision making and framing:

• In group decision making, framing the decision problem involves developing a
shared understanding regarding decision context, options, nature of the choice, and
expectations surrounding the collective outcome.

• The knowledge gained by framing the decision problem informs the remaining sen-
semaking process elements.

• When group process is subordinate to an individual decision maker, the individual’s
framing process informs and directs group framing.

• The framing for decision problems that arise within the process is likewise informed
and directed by the framing of the primary decision problem.

Next, we examine the second element of sensemaking: addressing resource requirements.

Addressing Resource Requirements
Like any complex task or activity, effective decision making requires specific resources.
Addressing resource requirements involves identifying the resources needed to effect a qual-
ity decision (such as relevant information and task-related human, physical, and organiza-
tional resources) and determining the best way to access them. Due to the complexity of her
decision problem, Molly uses an advisory team as her primary resource for gathering infor-
mation and weighing the options. That being the case, Molly carefully selects team members
whose background and KSAs will stock the team with task-relevant resources.

The team immediately identifies Tomas and Gerald as useful resources for the team’s organi-
zation. Although the case study does not detail this process, the team will also need to identify
resources needed for its decision-making process and discuss how to access them. Resource
needs include factual information on work-from-home policies and on the existing organi-
zational structures and processes that would be affected by adopting them. Both are neces-
sary to critically evaluate different policies and determine whether they could be successfully
implemented to the organization’s benefit.

Some of these resources are gathered by accessing the KSAs of specific team members. For
example, the team members are selected from areas that will be affected should the new
policy be adopted. These members can contribute important information about existing orga-
nizational structure and process and how it could be affected. Alicia also has previous experi-
ence with another organization’s work-from-home policy. Other information resources are
accessed indirectly and require the use of additional resources, such as when Casey gathers
the latest research and collects employee comments and suggestions regarding work-from-
home-policies. The means by which he gathers this information—namely, online sources and
employees—represent other resources required for the team’s decision-making process.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 209 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

Ideally, team leaders Tomas and Gerald will discuss and organize all of these resources in the
initial team meetings. This includes asking members to access their own relevant knowledge
and assigning activities that pertain to gathering and accessing these resources to specific
team members. It is clear, however, that regardless of whether Tomas and Gerald are aware
of potentially important information possessed by specific members—such as Alicia—they
are not effectively utilizing team resources. Tomas completely dismisses Alicia’s contribution,
and the attitudes and behaviors expressed by both leaders encourage the team to focus on
proving the positives of a single suggestion rather than critically exploring multiple options,
as Molly has requested. Redirecting the team’s process and use of resources becomes critical
for both the team’s and Molly’s decision-making process, as the team is her major resource for
information and option evaluation. If the quality of the team’s outcome suffers from continued
mismanagement of process and resources, the quality of Molly’s decision will be adversely
affected as well.

There are several key takeaways regarding decision making and resources:

• Specific resource needs and methods of access will vary depending on whether the
decision is being made by an individual or group, the type of decision problem being
addressed, the decision maker’s familiarity with the context, and the specific KSAs
they bring to the task.

• All decisions require information regarding alternatives and the reasons for choos-
ing between them. If group members do not have adequate information on these, or
if they determine more information is needed, then they will need the time, tools,
and ability to access this information. This may involve simply accessing other mem-
bers’ KSAs or gathering information from online or organizational sources. However,
it can also entail lengthier processes of information gathering, investigation, inter-
view, and study.

• Effective decision making depends on the successful utilization of resources.

Next, we outline the process and significance of sensemaking’s third element: selecting a
mode of engagement.

Selecting a Mode of Engagement
The mode of engagement selected for the group decision-making process defines member
roles, responsibilities, and expectations for process interaction. In doing so, it answers two
very pertinent questions: Who will actually make the decision, and what are group members
expected to do to facilitate that process? Individual decision makers must also address this
question, first by deciding whether they will act alone, and then in choosing the degree to
which any additional people will be involved in their decision. Research has identified six
basic modes of engagement for group decision making, each with its own set of role expecta-
tions for the process (Vroom, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 2013). These are shown in Table 6.2.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 210 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

Table 6.2: Modes of engagement

Mode of engagement Who decides Group member roles

Command decision Individual decision from leader/
manager or designated expert

Group members learn of the deci-
sion from their leader or manager.
They may or may not contribute
information to the decision maker.
They do not actively participate in
decision making.

Individual consultation Individual decision from leader/
manager

The group leader or manager
shares the decision problem
with individual group members.
Members provide ideas and sug-
gestions in private one-on-one
consultations. Group members are
not involved in the final selection,
and the decision outcome may or
may not reflect group opinion.

Group consultation Individual decision from leader/
manager

The group leader or manager dis-
cusses the decision problem with
the group as a whole. Members
provide input before a decision
is made. Group members are not
involved in the final selection, and
the decision outcome may or may
not reflect group opinion.

Facilitated group All group members except the
acting facilitator

A collaborative decision-making
process is coordinated by the
group leader or manager, who
may act as or assign a facilitator.
The group generates a collective
decision outcome, and the group
leader or manager abides by the
group’s decision.

Empowered group All group members An independently functioning
group is assigned by the group
leader or manager to generate a
collective decision outcome. The
group leader or manager does not
play any active role in the group’s
decision-making process. The
group may call on the leader or
manager to provide clarification,
direction, support, and various
resources as needed.

Minority control A select subgroup A self-managing group delegates
decision making to an expert sub-
group or assembles a temporary
task force of experts to deal with
and decide on a specific issue.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 211 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

In the final step of the sensemaking process, individual or group decision makers select a
primary mode of engagement. As we saw in our opening case study, however, managers and
groups can switch between modes or use a blend of them. In putting together an advisory
team, Molly is primarily choosing to act within the group consultation mode. At the end of
the process, the team members will present their evidence and suggestions to Molly as a
group. However, the final decision will be Molly’s alone, and it may or may not reflect the
team’s recommendations. However, Molly has also partially empowered her team to manage
its own investigations and decision-making process. She steps in only when it becomes clear
that the team needs some redirection. To decide how to redirect the team, Molly engages in a
two-part consultation mode—first at the individual level, and then with the group. She uses
the information from these sessions to make an individual decision on how to redirect the
group’s process and dynamics so the team can remain an effective resource for her primary
decision-making process. So how did Molly select her modes?

Although all of the modes of engagement shown in Table 6.2 are used in a group setting,
they call for varying levels of participation from group members. Some rely on a single indi-
vidual to produce the decision outcome; others call for a collective decision-making process.
To select a primary mode or understand when and how to shift modes, decision makers take
the following conditions into account:

• Existing group structure and roles
• Type of decision to be made
• Available time and resources
• Decision parameters and context
• Implementation needs

By assessing each of these factors, decision makers can determine the best mode of engage-
ment for any given situation. For example, Molly knows she will make the final decision about
the work-from-home policy by herself. Modes that require a collective decision outcome
are therefore not applicable to Molly’s situation. Likewise, when she’s concerned about her
team’s growing dysfunction, Molly sees that some team members are not speaking their mind
in the group setting. She uses both the individual and group consultation modes to avoid
this dynamic and gather a comprehensive sense of what’s been causing the dysfunction. The
complexity of the decision problem, its context, and its operational setting also impact mode
selection. Modes involving a collective decision-making process are recommended for deci-
sions that require one to consider complex factors, multiple viewpoints, and many informa-
tion sources; whose consequences are far-reaching or require significant buy-in; and whose
implementation will impact a wide range of individuals (Vroom, 2003). It is for these reasons
that Molly originally opted to augment her decision-making process by consulting a team.

After using the situational conditions to eliminate any impractical mode, the advantages and
disadvantages of the remaining modes can also be considered. As illustrated in Table 6.3,
each of the six basic modes of engagement has specific benefits and drawbacks that primarily
relate to group dynamics.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 212 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem

Table 6.3: The pros and cons of the six basic modes of engagement

Mode of engagement Advantages Disadvantages

Command decision • Uses minimal time and
resources.

• Decisions can be made very
quickly without waiting on
nonessential inputs.

• Can halt process loss and bolster
morale if a quick, authoritative
decision is needed.

• Benefits of group interaction
are lost.

• Diverse KSAs are not accessed.
• Member accountability and

buy-in are not developed
through participation and
ownership.

• Members may exhibit
resentment or resistance if
forced to abide by a decision
they do not support

Individual consultation • Accesses diverse KSAs.
• Members feel their input is

useful and desired.
• Although the process takes

more time than the command
decision mode, a decision
outcome is achieved more
quickly than modes that require
collective decision making.

• Does not access collective
support for information
retention and processing.

• Making relevant correlations
and use of diverse KSAs
depends on the understanding
and ability of a single person.

• Member accountability and
buy-in are not developed
through participation and
ownership.

• There is a tendency for
members to try to impress
leaders or tell them what they
think they want to hear, rather
than express real opinions.

• Members may exhibit
resentment or resistance if
forced to abide by a decision
they do not support.

Group consultation • Accesses diverse KSAs.
• Members feel their input is

useful and desired.
• Engages some benefits of group

discussion.
• Although the process takes

more time than the command
decision mode, a decision
outcome is achieved more
quickly than modes that require
collective decision making.

• Member accountability and
buy-in are less developed
because members have no
ownership over the decision
outcome.

• Tends to foster competition
between members who wish to
be well perceived by leaders or
want to promote their opinions
over others.

• Conflicts may go unresolved
if resolution is not deemed
essential for the leader’s
decision-making process.

• Members may exhibit
resentment or resistance if
forced to abide by a decision
they would not have supported.

(continued)

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 213 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.2 Sensemaking: Getting Familiar With the Decision Problem
Mode of engagement Advantages Disadvantages

Facilitated group • Accesses diverse KSAs.
• Member accountability and

buy-in are developed through
participation in and ownership
over the decision outcome.

• Engages the benefits of group
discussion.

• Facilitates member
coordination, time management,
constructive conflict, and
conflict resolution.

• Takes more time and effort
than modes that depend on
individual decision making or
a select subgroup’s decision-
making process.

• Requires a facilitator to have
group facilitation skills and the
ability to detach from the group
decision-making process.

Empowered group • Accesses diverse KSAs.
• Member accountability and

buy-in are developed through
participation in and ownership
over the decision outcome.
• Engages the benefits of group
discussion.
• Takes more time and effort
than modes that depend on
individual decision making or
a select subgroup’s decision-
making process.

• Process loss can occur if the
group does not stay on track,
fails to effectively manage
time, or engages in destructive
conflict, or if conflicts go
unresolved.

Minority control • Requires time, effort, and
coordination from a small
subgroup, rather than all group
members.

• Can be used to effect urgent
group decisions that are
complex enough to require a
collective process.

• Frees other group members to
perform other goal-directed
activities and tasks.

• Can build trust and efficacy
within the group if the decision
outcome is effective.

• Buy-in and support within the
group depend primarily on the
degree of trust and efficacy
accorded to the deciding
subgroup members.

• While it allows some access to
diverse KSAs, these are limited
by the size of the subgroup.

• If the subgroup stalls due to
conflict, the entire group may
suffer process loss while it waits
for the decision outcome.

• The subgroup may not
represent the majority opinion
of the group or may develop its
own outlook that is not fully
understood or supported by the
group.

• Group members who
are not involved in the
decision-making process
may not comprehensively
understand the decision or its
implementation.

Table 6.3: The pros and cons of the six basic modes of engagement (continued)

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 214 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

There are several key takeaways regarding decision making and mode of engagement:

• The mode of engagement should fit the specific needs of the decision process.
• Decision makers can switch between modes or adopt their own unique blend.
• As situational elements change, so too can the mode of engagement.
• The mode of engagement selected for decisions within the decision problem can dif-

fer from the primary mode of engagement.

In many cases, selecting and organizing the mode of engagement initiates group awareness
and sparks a discussion about how to accomplish decision integration. In the next section, we
examine popular schemes for generating a collective outcome, the benefits and drawbacks of
each, and how to use them to best advantage in group decision making.

6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome
When groups make decisions, they integrate their members’ individual preferences to gener-
ate a collective decision outcome. To effectively accomplish this, they need basic rules for how
members will interact, voice opinions, and come to general agreement on which alternative
is the best choice. A social decision scheme is a procedure or set of rules that govern the
generation of a collective decision. While specific rules and procedural aspects may vary from
group to group, social decision schemes tend to be based on voting and consensus. Let’s look
at each of these processes.

Voting: The Majority Rule
Voting is a popular method for generating collective decisions in Western culture. Votes can
be taken openly (for example, members voice their opinions or register them with a show of
hands) or by secret ballot (for example, members write down or register their votes via com-
puter without showing them to others). In its most popular format, voting measures indi-
vidual preference for each option to yield a majority preference. Whichever option gets the
most individual votes becomes the collective decision outcome. This is why voting schemes
are also known as majority rule. Various criteria can be used to define the winning majority,
including the following:

• Absolute majority: The winning option is selected by more than 50% of the group.
• Qualified majority: The winning option requires selection by a specific majority, such

as two thirds of the group.
• Relative majority: The winning option reflects the most popular opinion but can be

held by more or less than 50% of the membership.

Examples of various types of majorities are shown in Figure 6.2.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 215 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Absolute Majority
More than 50% of

the vote

Qualified Majority
Specified majority (such

as 75%)

Relative Majority
Single most

popular choice

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

Rules governing how members register their preferences can also be applied to the voting
process to create variations on how individuals register their preferences. These include the
following:

• Rank voting. The group assigns a preferential order to decision options, such as
ranking options between 1 (most preferred) and 5 (least preferred).

• Range voting. Each option within a given numerical range is independently scored,
such as between -10 and +10.

• Approval voting. Members cast equal votes for any number of preferred options.
• Cumulative voting. Members assign specific weights to various options by doling out

a set number of approval points.

In each of these variations, member responses are totaled and used to assign majority prefer-
ence to one of the options. If more than one option ties for the majority, another vote is held
to decide between them.

The Popularity of Majority Rule
Majority rule tends to be the go-to strategy for decision integration when no formal rules
have been adopted, and majority opinion often holds sway even when the group’s social deci-
sion scheme does not specify a majority vote (Davis, 1973, 1982; Kerr & Tindale, 2004). This
intuitive tendency toward majority rule is rooted in two significant aspects of cultural condi-
tioning that have persisted across societies and groups throughout history. The first dictates
that the attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs that are common to the majority in any collective are
considered to be the norm (Horne, 2008). This is why societal norms are both generated and
empowered by the constant belief and adherence of the majority population (Chun & Dyck,
2015). When particular norms—acceptance of slavery, for example—fall out of favor to the
point that this majority is challenged, then a revolution of thought and behavior can occur.

Figure 6.2: Various types of majorities

There are various ways to determine a majority when using voting to determine group decisions.

Absolute Majority
More than 50% of
the vote
Qualified Majority
Specified majority (such
as 75%)
Relative Majority
Single most
popular choice

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 216 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

This can be dramatic and violent, as in the American Civil War, or can simply represent a quiet
but sweeping cultural change, such as the shift to working and socializing online.

The second aspect of our cultural conditioning that supports our tendency toward majority
rule occurs as part of our natural cycle of cognitive growth and socialization during child-
hood. Despite the stereotypical parental advice that warns against following the crowd, we
learn by doing just that—mimicking those around us to develop language, motor, and social
skills during our formative years (Rogoff, Paradise, Arauz, Correa-Chavez, & Angelillo, 2003).
This informs the way we respond to new conditions and beliefs for the rest of our lives, set-
ting up an intuitive expectation that we can get a basic sense for what is accepted, or “right,”
by taking cues from the majority (Suls & Wheeler, 2000).

Despite our intuitive tendency to use this method, majority rule is not always advantageous to
group decision making. Next, we examine the advantages and disadvantages of majority rule
and when groups should use it.

Using Majority Rule to Best Advantage
Voting is commonly associated with generating member buy-in to a decision outcome, due
to the apparent democracy of the majority rule approach. In most cases, however, this turns
out to be a misperception. Majority rule can overwhelm important perspectives held by a
few. Critical information and viewpoints held by group minorities are not always heard or
given due consideration by the rest of the group. Minority members can harbor resentment
if they feel they have been disregarded or shut out of the decision-making process. They may
retaliate by hindering decision implementation, either by not participating or by withhold-
ing necessary resources. Anxiety over being viewed as a dissenting minority can also skew
the decision-making process if members choose to simply go along with the group majority,
rather than raising unpopular opinions or concerns. We saw something similar happen in the
case study, when Alicia, perceiving herself as a lone and unsupported dissenter, chose not to
voice any contrary opinions or concerns. Secret ballots are sometimes used to mitigate this
problem. However, the best fix for all of these issues is to instill a climate of cooperation and
communicative norms that view diverse information, viewpoint sharing, and debate as posi-
tive elements in the decision-making process.

The real advantages of majority rule are that it provides a relatively quick and efficient reso-
lution; can be used within large groups, where achieving collective agreement may take too
long; and is a familiar and easily understood method of decision integration. For the most
part, social decision schemes that feature majority rule are advantageous when the following
conditions are present:

• Large groups in which it is impractical for each member to actively participate in
group discussion. In such cases, a large portion of the group becomes a “listening
public” that devises individual preferences based on observing presentations from
speakers who are chosen to represent different viewpoints or sides of an issue
(Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006).

• Time-scarce decision problems, where the decision outcome is definitively correct
and relevant information is easily accessible and/or commonly held.

• Failure to reach agreement on a collective decision outcome by the required deadline
after knowledge has been comprehensively shared and the decision options have
been critically analyzed.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 217 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

When these conditions are in effect, majority rule offers a practical solution for achieving
relatively efficient and effective group decisions (Lawless, Whitton, & Poppeliers, 2008).
Effective decision making requires that the decision outcome is produced in a timely manner
and within designated time constraints. However, it also requires that the outcome is able to
garner support and be successfully implemented. The fact that voting can occur at any time
and without regard to how informed the participants are, to what degree they have engaged
in critical analysis, to what extent they have been exposed to contrasting information and
viewpoints, or how many members are in agreement, makes it ill-advised for conditions in
which collective comprehension, acceptance, and support for implementation are prime fac-
tors. If these are major considerations in the decision-making process, the group would better
served if it acted toward building consensus. We examine this scheme next.

Consensus: Undivided Agreement
At its root, the group decision-making process is aimed at building consensus. When groups
discuss and debate various options, the underlying understanding is that members are trying
to reach an acceptable agreement on which option should be selected. In consensus building,
group members strive for overwhelming agreement, solidarity in sentiment and belief, and
commitment to supporting a collaborative solution or collective judgment (Susskind & Crui-
kshank, 2006). There are three major points worth remembering about quality consensus
building:

1. Consensus need not be absolute. In research settings, consensus equals zero dissent;
but in the real world relative consensus is close enough. What it does require is
unanimous acceptance, wherein members who maintain reservations can agree to
support the collective decision outcome and at least give it a chance.

2. Consensus building should be informative. Group members should walk away with
a mutual understanding of the decision context, options, and decision outcome,
as well as what that outcome entails and its impacts on their time, interests, and
resources.

3. Participants should strive for mutual satisfaction and gain. Consensus building should
not be a competitive process, but one in which all members work collaboratively
toward a decision outcome that works for everyone.

Consensus building begins the moment the group begins to discuss the decision problem.
Group members then engage in inquiry-based advocacy and discussion until a collective deci-
sion outcome is achieved (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). When we advocate a point
of view, we present our position and the reasoning supporting it. In inquiry-based advo-
cacy, two or more opposing positions are presented in order to investigate an option or issue;
the goal is to establish a framework of relevant information and reasoning needed to make
an informed judgment regarding the best course of action. The fact that consensus requires
each option to be thoroughly discussed until the group agrees on a collective decision repre-
sents both the primary benefit and major drawback of consensus schemes. On the plus side,
consensus is generally associated with higher quality decisions, greater satisfaction with the
process, and increased comprehension and support of the collective decision outcome (John-
son & Johnson, 2013). On the downside, consensus building is often perceived as too time-
consuming and difficult or as requiring negative win–lose and lose–lose compromises, where
either one party gains while the other loses or both parties are unsatisfied with the outcome
(Susskind, 2012). In reality, these negative outcomes are often generated by members who

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 218 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

anticipate problems in the process (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006). Let’s look at how these
potential drawbacks can be overcome.

Negative Perceptions of Consensus
Consensus building is too time-consuming and difficult. In contrast to voting, the point of con-
sensus is to come as close as possible to satisfying everyone’s interests and concerns (Susskind
& Cruikshank, 2006). Consensus building necessarily requires discussion and time—to exam-
ine decision options, explore diverse knowledge, and hear a variety of viewpoints—before
coming to a conclusion that can be reasonably supported by all, even if group members do
not universally agree. Consensus building is founded on the idea that members are mutually
accountable for participating in and governing their process. They are responsible for shar-
ing information and viewpoints and for listening as others do so. Collectively generating the
group’s timetable, and feeling ownership over it, builds commitment and awareness of time
sensitivity. It also helps the group focus on progressing through the consensus-building pro-
cess in a timely manner.

Mutual accountability is also important for moving away from diverse preferences and toward
a convergence of viewpoints. Conflicting opinions are only a problem if group members allow
their priorities to shift from their collective purpose—generating a quality decision—to the
more self-serving mission of “winning” the discussion. While it takes effort to address every-
one’s concerns and find or construct a decision outcome that satisfies most, if group members
maintain mutual accountability for collaborative effort toward a group decision, they will find
ways to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution (Susskind, 2012). This tends to involve some
compromising—another area of anxiety for those who harbor doubts about the efficacy of
consensus.

Consensus requires win–lose or lose–lose compromising. Some believe that any decision reached
by consensus must involve a compromise that leaves some or all unsatisfied. However, this
idea is based on the false assumption that one viewpoint must conquer the others to generate
a quality decision. Consensus builders should see themselves as collaboratively solving the
decision problem, where achieving a well-considered agreement that maximizes joint gains
is part of the solution. The assumption that compromising means “losing out” in some way is
furthered by an unconscious expectation that majority opinion will prevail and that whoever
achieves the majority influence will “win” the decision.

While group decisions tend to lean toward the majority view, this does not mean that group
members must work against each other to achieve an outcome. In fact, better quality deci-
sions tend to result from working together to select or construct a decision option that rep-
resents a win–win for all members of the group. In consensus building, a win–win outcome
means settling on an option or course of action that is good for most, without sacrificing any-
one’s basic interests. People often confuse their position with their interests, and this is mainly
what drives the perception of compromising as a win–lose or lose–lose process (Susskind &
Cruikshank, 2006).

A position is a strongly held attitude or viewpoint regarding a decision option or course of
action. Stating one’s position can involve declaring an individual preference, support for, or
opposition to preferences declared by other members. In decision problems in which one
option is definitively correct, position is primarily founded on factual evidence. However,

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 219 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.3 Decision Integration: Generating a Collective Outcome

complex decision problems—those most commonly handled by groups—often involve inter-
pretative determinations of right, wrong, or best options. In such cases, our interests, or
desires concerning the decision process and outcome, become personal reasons for holding
a position we view as the best (or only) avenue. This is at play in U.S. presidential elections,
for example, when people vote for candidates whose platform and agenda seem to support
their personal interests—whether these are represented by health care reforms, ecological
concerns, tax cuts, civil rights, or the economy. Effecting win–win compromise in consensus
building begins with understanding the basic interests that motivate each group member
and acknowledging that it is possible to find or construct an option that maintains significant
interests, even if members cannot maintain their original position.

Using Consensus to Best Advantage
Building consensus within a group enhances the quality of a decision, no matter what social
decision scheme is used. Fostering consensus before a vote can effectively combine advan-
tages from both schemes. The voting process can take place before an overwhelming consen-
sus is reached, moving the group more quickly toward resolution. Having explored all of the
options, however, the membership will be able to more effectively evaluate decision options,
resulting in higher quality decisions. Group members go into the vote better informed and
with an increased likelihood of a large majority win. The entire process results in greater
overall satisfaction with the decision because (a) the winning majority is gratified with their
outcome; and (b) even though they did not win, the losing minorities feel their views have
been heard and considered. To facilitate quality decisions using the consensus process, group
members should do the following:

• State individual preferences and supportive reasoning as clearly and accurately as
possible (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995).

• Seek out and investigate differences in viewpoint and opinion (Agrawal, 2012).
• Critically analyze and evaluate each position taken—including preferred options.
• Be open to changing preferences but be swayed by sound, supportive reasoning

(Johnson, Johnson, & Tjosvold, 2006).
• Agree to abide by a relative consensus if absolute agreement is unobtainable.
• Ensure group discussion includes what a specific outcome entails and its impacts on

members’ time, interests, and resources (Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006).
• Stay focused on the collective goal—making a quality decision—rather than getting

sidetracked by the desire to win in discussion or debate.
• Move through the process with a win–win mentality—finding solutions that main-

tain everyone’s important interests is often a matter of believing we can and acting
accordingly (Susskind, 2012).

• Commit to a collectively established timetable, rather than passively following an
open-ended time frame or deadline set by nonparticipants (Korsgaard et al., 2003).

• Differentiate between members’ positions and interests and explore how various
options can maintain members’ interests even if their position must change (Suss-
kind & Cruikshank, 2006).

Consensus can depend on members’ ability to motivate and maintain relevant knowledge
sharing and constructive conflict. It is also contingent on their ability to listen to one another
and satisfactorily resolve differences of opinion. If group members are unable or unwilling

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 220 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

to share relevant knowledge and opinions, or if situational or social factors pressure them to
rush toward consensus, they may hold back dissenting information or viewpoints and simply
go with the majority opinion (Kameda, Takezawa, Tindale, & Smith, 2002). In the next section,
we examine how information sharing and social influence critically affect the quality of group
decisions.

6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence
Effective decision making requires that a decision outcome is of high quality and based on
sound reasoning and informed process. In group decision making, decision quality directly
correlates to the quality of two critical elements: information exchange between group mem-
bers and critical analysis of the options. These elements are crucially linked. The amount and
accuracy of decision-relevant information that is available and put to use by group mem-
bers profoundly impacts their ability to critically analyze options. Information that is either
unshared or distorted due to bias damages a group’s ability to make effective choices. Deci-
sion quality is also affected by social influence, or the impact of shared information, ideas,
and viewpoints on our own. Social influence is a major factor in motivating—or demotivat-
ing—critical analysis of decision options. In this section, we’ll examine how the quality of
information exchange and social influence within the group impacts its decision process.
Let’s begin with how biases limit the amount and quality of the information group members
depend on to make an effective decision.

The Limiting Effects of Bias
The capacity to pool diverse knowledge and expertise is a prime factor underlying the expec-
tation that groups are better equipped to deal with complex decisions than individuals. Com-
mittees, for example, are often composed of members who have diverse backgrounds and
are brought together for the express purpose of accessing a wider range of information to
address a complex problem. However, the benefits of diverse KSAs can be severely limited
when the quality of information exchange is damaged as a result of bias in group discussion.
The following sections outline the two biases most common and detrimental to group discus-
sion and offer strategies to mitigate their impact on group performance.

The Common Knowledge Effect
Despite the fact that group decision making’s value is rooted in the sharing of diverse knowl-
edge and expertise, group members often fail to exchange and discuss unique information,
or the knowledge and data that is only accessible to or held by select individuals. Instead,
they tend to focus on shared information, or information that is easily accessed and col-
lectively held (Schulz-Hardt, Jochims, & Frey, 2002). The tendency to bias discussions toward
shared information is known as the common knowledge effect (Gigone & Hastie, 1993).
The common knowledge effect can seriously damage group effectiveness by negating one of
the primary benefits of group interaction: access to diverse information. So what causes the
common knowledge effect?

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 221 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

There are two significant factors that contribute to the common knowledge effect:

• The number of people in possession of the knowledge. As the number of people who
possess specific, shared information increases, so does the likelihood of it being
mentioned, repeated, remembered, and discussed. Thus, information shared by all
members tends to be more prevalent in group discussion than information known
only to a few; and partially shared information is more likely to be discussed than
unique information.

• The influence of group norms and leadership. Group norms can dictate the way mem-
bers communicate regarding a decision problem. They can also influence expecta-
tions for and responses to knowledge sharing and the underlying purpose guiding
decision-making discussions (Postmes, Spears, & Cihangir, 2001). Groups (or group
leaders) that habitually prize rapid decision resolution or group harmony may
explicitly or implicitly discourage unique knowledge sharing because unique infor-
mation is more likely to prolong discussion and stimulate conflict or debate (Schol-
ten, Van Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De Drue, 2007).

Next, we’ll take a look at another limiting bias that can seriously damage our ability to criti-
cally evaluate decision options and effect a quality decision.

Dealing With Confirmation Bias
During discussions, group members have a natural tendency to focus on their own prefer-
ences because they are generally most interested in advocating these to the group (Laughlin,
1980; Stasser & Titus, 1985). Sometimes the desire to uphold a particular position overrides
members’ motivation to critically evaluate decision options, and they unintentionally engage
in selective perception. The tendency to solely perceive, acquire, and utilize information
that confirms (rather than contests) preexisting preferences, ideas, and beliefs is known as
confirmation bias (Allahverdyan & Galstyan, 2014). These tendencies reflect the positions
and interests held by individual group members.

If group members enter into a discussion with set positions and interests, they will naturally
try to further these through group discussion by focusing on sharing and acquiring infor-
mation that supports their viewpoint and influences others (Forsyth, 2010). Members who
prioritize a particular agenda over others no matter what will use reasoning distorted by
confirmation bias to support their position. If these agenda pushers are in a majority, or are
particularly persuasive, the entire group may selectively gather data to support conclusions it
has reached in advance and overlook potential downsides. For example, a new product design
may capture the design team’s imagination; it is likely to then share that excitement with the
marketing and production teams. All of these groups may end up downplaying the costs of
production and marketing without due consideration because they are instead focused on the
product’s potential popularity.

On the personal level, interests can encompass more than what seems obviously relevant to
the decision process. While group members may strive toward an optimal decision outcome,
an individual’s best-case scenario may include factors that are unknown or unimportant to
anyone else. For example, in choosing between relatively equal candidates for promotion to
division manager, group members may favor one over the others based on personal interests
such as relational connections, positive or negative experience with a particular individual, or

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 222 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

approval of managerial strategy and proposed agenda. Group members may also selectively
share information or use it to confirm others’ viewpoints as a way to tacitly offer or withhold
support and approval, secure relational bonds, and develop or compete for status within the
group (Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004).

Next, we look at strategies for overcoming these limiting biases and the negative effects they
can have on group discussion.

Mitigating Limiting Biases
The common knowledge effect is so consistently present in studies of group dynamics that
it would be foolish to say it can be eradicated (Hunton, 2001). Rather, it seems to be a natu-
ral phenomenon of social interaction. Acknowledging and discussing shared information is a
natural tactic for recognizing similar others, comparing and confirming attitudes and beliefs,
and creating or maintaining social bonds (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Nevertheless, there are
ways to mitigate the impact of the common knowledge effect and other limiting tendencies
such as the confirmation bias.

The presence of positive norms regarding member diversity, information sharing, construc-
tive criticism, and critical analysis in group problem solving and discussion tends to diminish
both the common knowledge effect and confirmation bias in group interactions (Wittenbaum
et al., 2004). Societal norms regarding expert authority can also impact information sharing.
Group members are more likely to expect the experts among them to share unique informa-
tion and will tend to give the input and opinions of experts more weight than contributions
from nonexpert group members (Stasser, Vaughan, & Stewart, 2000; Franz & Larson, 2002).

Specific task features reduce the impact of these biases. Joint information seeking can intro-
duce decision-relevant knowledge across the group and encourage newly acquired informa-
tion to rapidly shift in status from unique to shared. Collective recall sessions—in which group
member sum up what they have learned so far—can also have a positive effect on knowl-
edge sharing, particularly when planned in advance. Group members who anticipate a col-
lective recall session are consistently more likely to share unique information because they
(a) assume this expectation regarding member roles during the session and (b) want to be
perceived as capable and valuable to the group (Stasser et al., 2000; Wittenbaum et al., 2004).
Ranking decision options in order of preference in the initial stages of group discussion also
facilitates knowledge sharing, reduces the common knowledge effect, and helps mitigate
members’ tendency to focus exclusively on their own preferences and distort supportive rea-
soning with confirmation bias (Laughlin, 1980; Stasser & Titus, 1985; Hollingshead, 1996).

The most effective strategy so far is to simply educate group members on these negative ten-
dencies and the impact they can have on the quality and effectiveness of group process and
decision making (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Raising awareness and encouraging group mem-
bers to actively seek out unique information, invite constructive criticism, and welcome con-
trasting viewpoints have proved to be successful mitigation techniques (Hunton, 2001). Addi-
tionally, there are several useful guidelines for information exchange in group discussion:

• Use visuals. Unique information is more likely to be remembered when knowledge
sharing is accompanied by pictures (Stewart & Stewart, 2001).

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 223 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

• Strive for a balanced tone. Whether it enters the discussion as unique or common
knowledge, negative information gets more discussion time than positive informa-
tion (Stewart, 1998).

• Raise awareness of member diversity. Group members who know and expect oth-
ers to have diverse knowledge and perspectives tend to more actively seek out and
share unique information (Hightower & Sayeed, 1995; Schittekatte, 1996; Stasser &
Titus, 1987).

• Incorporate technology. Access to computers, digital devices, and online data dur-
ing discussions can help new, decision-relevant information be jointly acquired and
considered (Savadori, Van Swol, & Sniezek, 2001; Lavery, Franz, Winquist, & Larson,
1999).

Part of our ability to effectively evaluate options depends on the amount and accuracy of deci-
sion-relevant information we can acquire—the rest depends on how we use that information.
In group decision making this is largely determined by social influence in group discussion.
Next, we examine how social influence affects how we critically analyze decision options—
and in doing so, significantly impacts decision quality.

Group Discussion and Social Influence
In group decision making, members share information and pool KSAs to critically analyze
and evaluate decision options. Once the decision problem has been framed, group discussion
tends to follow a basic pattern: Members exchange prediscussion preferences, then support
those preferences by clarifying their reasoning to the group (Boster & Mayer, 1984; Dennis,
1996; Pavitt, 2014). Individual preferences reflect the options each person perceives as the
most situationally appropriate, rationally and/or intuitively reasonable, and beneficial to
personal and/or collective interests (Pavitt, 2014). Group members base their prediscussion
preferences on their stock of decision-relevant information, personal interests, and biases.
Post-discussion preferences may or may not differ as a result of social influence, which can
either change or reinforce initial preferences for options.

There are three major processes of social influence at work in decision-making discussions:
social comparison, conformity, and argumentation.

Social comparison is a type of social influence that involves evaluating one’s own behavior,
opinions, knowledge, attributes, abilities, and worth in relation to others (Festinger, 1954).
When it comes to opinion (Suls & Wheeler, 2000), individuals tend to use social comparison
to assess preferences (do I like the company’s new diversity training policy?); assess belief (is
it true that we need diversity training?); and predict preferences (will I like the diversity train-
ing?). Social comparison leads group members to be influenced by one another’s preferences.

Conformity is a type of social influence that involves changing one’s behavior, attitude, or
beliefs in order to gain or maintain social acceptance. Although conformity can foster real
change, the tendency in group decision making is to simply pay “lip service” to the majority
view, rather than experience an actual change of individual preference (Pavitt, 2014). Confor-
mity leads group members to voice the ideas, viewpoints, and preferences they believe will
engender acceptance and approval from their group.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 224 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

Argumentation is a type of social influence that involves exchanging, analyzing, and debat-
ing conflicting information and viewpoints. Although we tend to think of argumentation as a
bad thing, it can be very beneficial to group process. Voicing conflicting viewpoints is critical
to informed decision making, both in motivating comprehensive analysis and validating the
group’s choice (Propp, 1997; Schulz-Hardt, Frey, Lu?thgens, & Moscovici, 2000). Argumenta-
tion leads group members to share and discuss decision-relevant knowledge, critically ana-
lyze and evaluate all options, and be influenced by shared knowledge and discussion.

In many ways, social comparison and conformity work together—often to inhibit critical
thinking—while argumentation tends to mitigate these negative effects. In this section, we
examine the elements of social influence that determine a group’s capacity to critically evalu-
ate decision options, beginning with the dynamic interrelationship between social compari-
son and conformity.

Social Comparison and Conformity
In group work, critical thinking can sometimes take a backseat to what essentially becomes
a popularity contest between options—and at times, between members themselves (Pavitt,
2014). The exchange of preferences initiates comparison and the potential to conform to pref-
erences held by authorities within the group. Authority, in this case, is largely a matter of col-
lective perception. It can be attached to personal or positional status or to the group majority.

Status Authority
As discussed in Chapter 4, status refers to a formally or informally granted social ranking.
Individuals perceived as high status are more likely to contribute during discussions, their
contributions are more likely to be accepted, and they are more likely to inspire conformity
within the group (Kirchler & Davis, 1986; Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995). Leaders
can hold a significant amount of positional (and possibly personal) status and should care-
fully consider its impact on group discussion (Peterson, 1977). This is particularly important,
given leaders’ potential to (a) encourage the free exchange of ideas and discussion of dissent-
ing viewpoints and (b) advocate a preferred position or proposal and favor information and
viewpoints that support this. For instance, overly directive leaders tend to perform poorly in
the first area and well in the second, resulting in less information exchange and critical evalu-
ation and more conformity to the leaders’ desires regarding the outcome (Larson, Foster-
Fisherman, & Franz, 1998; Pavitt, 2014).

Experts can have status as well, particularly regarding issues that directly involve their area
of expertise. Similar to the leadership dynamics outlined above, perceived expertise can influ-
ence member opinion and inspire conformity within the group (Berger et al., 1977; Franz &
Larson, 2002). When we think of expertise, we typically associate it with positional status.
However, in some ways expertise can be an emergent quality, as perceived expertise does not
always depend on level of actual knowledge or designated title. Demonstrated competence,
relevant knowledge, and past experience can be perceived as expertise, and frequent partici-
pation in discussion can heighten credibility and influence within the group if that participa-
tion is perceived as valuable (Kameda, Ohtsubo, & Takezawa, 1997; Weisband, 1992). This
can establish a cycle of increasing influence within the group, as perceived expertise increases
personal status. Moreover, high-status people talk more, are less susceptible to the common
knowledge effect, and are more likely to share unique information, thereby confirming their

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 225 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

expert value to the discussion (Wittenbaum, 1998, 2000; Savadori et al., 2001). Group majori-
ties, which we discuss next, also have significant authority and influence within the group.

Majority Authority
Social comparison and conformity also influence how we perceive and react to group major-
ity. As noted earlier in the chapter, we are culturally conditioned to view the majority opinion
as the norm and to expect that going against that norm will garner negative reactions from
our peers. This commonly leads group members to mistake the majority viewpoint for the
“right choice” (Maier, 1963, 1999). The desire to fit in often supersedes any doubts a member
may have about the majority opinion (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996; Pavitt, 2014).
Social pressure is a major force for conformity, as the desire for approval and/or fear of rejec-
tion tends to silence dissenting viewpoints and encourage false consensus (Maier, 1999).

The majority viewpoint tends to gain dominance in discussion based on the simple fact that
there are more people advocating it. Cautious of the potentially negative social consequences,
members who perceive themselves as holding a minority opinion are also less likely to share
information and viewpoints, which further minimizes their ability to influence the group
(Noelle-Neumann, 1993). Strength in numbers works for minorities too, however. Large
minorities are less willing to conform to majority opinion (Asch, 1951; Brandstetter et al.,
2014), and they hold greater influence within the group than smaller minorities—to a point.
The optimal size for minority influence within the group seems to be approximately half the
size of the group majority (Pavitt, 2014). As the size difference between group majority and
minority diminishes below that 2:1 ratio, the tendency to influence each other is superseded
by competition and a tendency to retrench and deadlock. Minority influence is more effective
when dealing with demonstrable support (such as factual evidence) rather than judgments
based on personal opinion (Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994). The
opinion of a group expert, for example, is given more weight than others in discussion, and
if that opinion is backed up by factual evidence, a single expert can effectively influence or
overturn a favored majority view.

Any obvious majority within the group will trigger comparison and invite conformity, though
the relative strength of its influence depends on the size of the majority. Majority influence is
determined by four basic factors:

1. Assumption that the majority is correct
2. Fear of consequence for dissent
3. Desire to gain or maintain social acceptance
4. Dominance of the majority viewpoint in discussion

Time pressure can also lead group members to curtail or rush through critical analysis, con-
centrating instead on voicing and comparing individual preferences and responding to con-
flicting views with pressure to conform to the majority, rather than giving them due consid-
eration (Pavitt, 2014; Kelly & Loving, 2003). Argumentation is the antidote to conformity in
group decision making.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 226 8/19/16 9:35 AM

A B C

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

Decision Making and Argumentation
Argumentation comes into play when members with conflicting viewpoints begin to clar-
ify the reasoning behind their preferences and support their position with relevant infor-
mation (Kaplan & Miller, 1987; Pavitt & Aloia, 2009). This is a critical factor in promoting
the exchange and discussion of decision-relevant information, critical analysis, and mutual
influence by reasoning. Group members who find themselves unanimously leaning toward
one option early in the discussion are less likely to consider other options—forgoing any
real critical analysis of the available choices (Pavitt & Aloia, 2009; Pavitt, 1994, 2014). Dis-
senting opinions motivate the exchange of information and critical analysis of all decision
options, including the one preferred by the majority of group members (Brodbeck, Kerschre-
iter, Mojzisch, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2002; Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Mojzisch, Kerschreiter, &
Frey, 2006).

Argumentation is fueled by controversy, or the conflict that arises when the ideas, infor-
mation, position, and interests held by one individual seem incompatible with those held
by another (Johnson & Johnson, 2013). Decisions are by nature subject to controversy, as

Concepts in Action: Staking Correctness on Majority Opinion
In a famous experiment, Asch (1951)
studied the conditions under which indi-
viduals yielded to or defied the majority
in a group. He asked subjects to compare
and contrast a line drawn in one box to
three lines drawn in a second box (see
Figure 6.3). It was rather obvious that
line B was most comparable in length to
the reference line.

When individuals undertook this test
alone, most of them selected the cor-
rect answer. However, when they were
placed in a group (members of whom
were covert plants by the experimenter),
subjects’ judgment was affected by the
opinions of their peers. When a signifi-
cant number of planted group members
selected the wrong line—say, line A—
subjects were much more likely to go
along with that judgment if they were asked to pick last, after hearing the judgment of their
peers. The larger the majority, the stronger the effect.

Critical-Thinking Question
1. Recall and describe an instance in which your evaluation and judgment did not align

with majority opinion. Did you stand by your own judgment or go along with majority
rule? Using the concepts from this section, analyze the social dynamics at work during
that event, how they affected your decision-making process, and the group’s response
to your choice.

Figure 6.3: The Asch experiment

Source: Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the
modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow
(Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh:
Carnegie Press.

A B C

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 227 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.4 Decision Quality: Using Information and Influence

decision options are critically examined and compared. Even if all group members begin with
a single preference, deliberate controversy in the form of structured, inquiry-based advocacy
will help them make an informed decision. It can also confirm that their preferred option
is the best choice or influence them to select another. Argumentation is key to countering
confirmation bias and weakening the common knowledge effect, as well as mitigating the
negative influence that social comparison and conformity can have. The primary concern
regarding argumentation is in the potential for conflict to generate negative interpersonal
dynamics between group members. Since these negative interactions can seriously damage
member relations and the ability to work effectively, it is imperative to maintain constructive
controversy.

Constructive controversy describes the process of using structured and relevant conflict to
stimulate the exchange of information and ideas; foster creativity; and enable critical analy-
sis, problem solving, and evaluation (Vollmer & Seyr, 2013). The basic assumption underlying
this process is that being exposed to conflicting viewpoints and reasoning incites curiosity
and uncertainty, which unlocks closed perspectives and fosters a better reasoning process
(Johnson et al., 2006). Above all, constructive controversy should be viewed as a learning
process in which active, focused, and informed debate between interested parties assists the
reasoning and evaluation process (Mitroff, 1982; Johnson et al., 2006).

There are many ways to structure inquiry-based advocacy. Of these, dialectic inquiry and
devil’s advocacy are perhaps most commonly successful. Dialectic inquiry involves directly
comparing the reasoning behind positions that are diametrically opposed, meaning that their
assumptions and recommendations are not just opposing, but directly opposite. This method
is based on the premise that comparing and contrasting two diametrically opposed positions
results in higher quality decisions, as members evaluate the relative value of each position in
relation to the other. A devil’s advocate is someone whose primary task is to criticize a given
proposal or set of proposals. Devil’s advocacy occurs when an individual or subgroup takes
on the role of devil’s advocate to methodically critique the reasoning attached to a particu-
lar position, generate counterarguments, and identify any inherent issues and weaknesses
(Schulz-Hardt et al., 2002).

What’s the difference between these two methods? Dialectic inquiry involves a contest
between two different and opposite viewpoints. In devil’s advocacy, one position is advocated,
then critiqued to reveal issues and weaknesses in the reasoning supporting it. In compar-
ing the two, researchers essentially found that while devil’s advocacy is better at revealing
potential problems and faulty reasoning, it reveals these negatives without offering possible
solutions or alternatives (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). Dialectic inquiry, on the other
hand, provides more information and stimulation for alternative options but has a greater
potential to divide, rather than decide, group preference if both positions are well presented
and argued. Nonetheless, both dialectic inquiry and devil’s advocacy consistently foster bet-
ter informed, higher quality decision outcomes than those derived from unstructured argu-
mentation processes.

Using structured methods for inquiry-based advocacy is a very specific way to facilitate con-
structive controversy, but there are some more general guidelines that have critical value as
well. Decision-making groups are more likely to avoid dysfunctional conflict and engage in
constructive controversy when care is taken to do the following:

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 228 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

• Construct and maintain positive member relations using interpersonal communica-
tion and relations skills, as outlined in Chapter 3 (Chen, Tjosvold, & Wu, 2008).

• Foster norms conducive to constructive controversy and maintain a climate of coop-
eration within the group (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006; Vollmer & Seyr, 2013).

• Engage persuasive rather than coercive tactics, such as reasoned argumentation
rather than social pressure (Tjosvold & Sun, 2001).

• Be respectful and not engage in personal attacks (Tjosvold, Hui, & Sun, 2004).
• Express mutual accountability and cooperation toward a quality outcome (Tjosvold,

1988).

Next, we examine the connection between social influence processes and dysfunctional
decision-making dynamics that can severely damage group process, relations, and decision-
making quality.

6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group
Decision Making
We’ve examined how discussion bias and social influence can affect the quality of group
decision-making process and outcome at the basic level. Taken on their own, most of the
negative dynamics examined so far are only mildly dysfunctional. While they impair critical
thinking in decision making, they do not completely destroy it. However, when social influ-
ence becomes detached from critical thinking and rational reasoning, it can lead to major
dysfunction that can seriously damage group efficacy and process. This section examines
how and why major dysfunction occurs within the group decision-making process. We also
explore how it results in group polarization, pluralistic ignorance, and groupthink.

Group Polarization
In the 1960s the study of group dynamics began to include experiments featuring group deci-
sion making and risk. Researchers were astounded when a series of studies (Wallach, Kogan,
& Bem, 1962; Kogan & Wallach, 1967; Stoner, 1961, 1968) revealed that group discussion
resulted in a final choice that was more risky than the average of members’ choices before
deliberation. Experimenters measured the amount of risk deemed acceptable by participants
using the Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire, a self-assessment form that presented partici-
pants with a series of scenarios involving risky ventures that could potentially yield beneficial
results. It asked them to indicate how high the odds of success would need to be before they
would recommend taking the chance. Participants filled out the forms individually, indicating
their prediscussion preferences, then filled them out again after the group interacted. Some
studies focused on the change in individual preferences after a set period of discussion (Kogan
& Wallach, 1967; Wallach et al., 1962), while others required group consensus before noting
the results (Marquis, 1962; Stoner, 1968). Figure 6.4 shows an example of the question format
used in the Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 229 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Mr. A, a software developer who is married and has two children, has worked for

a large electronics corporation since graduating from college 10 years ago. His

current position is very secure, and he receives a modest but adequate salary

and a generous pension benefit upon retirement. However, it is unlikely that his

salary will increase much before he retires. While attending a convention, Mr. A

connects with the owners of a small, newly founded company with a highly

uncertain future. They enjoy Mr. A’s company, are impressed by his knowledge

and intelligence, and offer him a job. The position would not only pay more to

start, but also offer the possibility of a profitable share in ownership if the

company survives the competitive market.

Imagine you are advising Mr. A. Listed below are several probabilities or
odds regarding the new company’s likelihood of proving financially
sound. Please check the lowest probability that you would consider it
acceptable for Mr. A to take the new job.

____The chances are 1 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 3 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 5 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 7 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 9 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____ Mr. A should not take the new job no matter what the probabilities.

Group Behavior Organizations

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

The studies revealed that after group discussion, both individual preferences and group con-
sensus shifted toward greater risk taking (Kogan & Wallach, 1967; Stoner, 1968). This phe-
nomenon was replicated in studies around the world with a wide variety of participants and
was initially known as the risky-shift effect (Pruitt, 1971; Lamm & Myers, 1978). However, this
label proved incomplete. As the studies progressed, researchers observed that groups could
also experience conservative shifts and that group discussion could act to either intensify or
temper members’ attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, values, and judgments (Myers, 1982). For
example, one study found that when a group of strongly prejudiced members discussed racial
issues, their prejudice got stronger, while a group of only mildly prejudiced individuals ended
their discussion less prejudiced than when they began it (Myers & Bishop, 1970).

The idea of risky and conservative shifts was subsumed into a larger, more general theory sug-
gesting that group discussion can influence members to adopt a more extreme position than
they held beforehand (Myers & Lamm, 1976). The entire phenomenon was renamed group

Figure 6.4: Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire—sample question

Which odds would you pick?

Source: Adapted from Marquis, D. G. (1962). Individual responsibility and group decisions involving risk. Industrial Management
Review, 3(2), 8–23.

Mr. A, a software developer who is married and has two children, has worked for
a large electronics corporation since graduating from college 10 years ago. His
current position is very secure, and he receives a modest but adequate salary
and a generous pension benefit upon retirement. However, it is unlikely that his
salary will increase much before he retires. While attending a convention, Mr. A
connects with the owners of a small, newly founded company with a highly
uncertain future. They enjoy Mr. A’s company, are impressed by his knowledge
and intelligence, and offer him a job. The position would not only pay more to
start, but also offer the possibility of a profitable share in ownership if the
company survives the competitive market.
Imagine you are advising Mr. A. Listed below are several probabilities or
odds regarding the new company’s likelihood of proving financially
sound. Please check the lowest probability that you would consider it
acceptable for Mr. A to take the new job.
____The chances are 1 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
____The chances are 3 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
____The chances are 5 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
____The chances are 7 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
____The chances are 9 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.
____ Mr. A should not take the new job no matter what the probabilities.
Group Behavior Organizations

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 230 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

polarization and avidly studied. In regard to group decision making, group polarization
refers to a group’s tendency to generate a collective decision outcome that is aligned with, but
more extreme than, the average of its members’ prediscussion preferences (Brauer, Judd, &
Jacquelin, 2001; Lamm & Myers, 1978). Early on, researchers theorized that group polariza-
tion was caused by a reduction in individual accountability and a tendency to follow strong
leaders within the group. However, it is now acknowledged that all three social influence
processes—social comparison, conformity, and argumentation—can instigate and contribute
to polarization within the group (Friedkin, 1999; Liu & Latane, 1998).

In social comparison, individuals follow norms rather than reasoning. Before group discus-
sion, member attitudes and positions are guided by their habitual perspectives. During dis-
cussion, they gauge the perceived acceptance and validity of their viewpoint vis-à-vis others.
Upon finding these reflected in the similar views of their group mates, they feel justified in
strengthening their position (Myers, 1978). In groups where the majority of members share
similar outlooks, social comparison can work synergistically with conformity, causing group
members to overemphasize their shared viewpoints to cement goodwill and acceptance
within the group (Weigold & Schlenker, 1991). A group in which members were initially risk
averse, for example, will then become very risk averse. Engaging in argumentation may help
members who share very similar views explore differences in perspective and understand-
ing, although they may require facilitation to avoid simply voicing and strengthening shared
knowledge and opinions. The tendency to dominate discussion with existing preferences, the
common knowledge effect, and confirmation bias act in concert with social comparison and
conformity to largely shut out constructive controversy in favor of arguments that support
majority viewpoints (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977; Zuber, Crott, & Werner, 1992). Next, we dis-
cuss pluralistic ignorance, a phenomenon that occurs when the majority of group members
think alike—but fail to realize it.

Pluralistic Ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance is a sociopsychological phenomenon wherein a majority of group
members privately reject an attitude, opinion, or norm but publically abide by it because they
assume the majority accepts it (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Unlike group polarization,
which confirms and strengthens perceived similarities in viewpoint, pluralistic ignorance is
an utterly ironic condition in which group members all believe themselves to be the lone dis-
senters among the majority and act to hide this fact by publically supporting the opinion or
behavior they secretly resist- unaware that the other members are doing the same (Bjerring,
Hansen, & Pedersen, 2014). This has been commonly observed in classrooms and in cases of
assumed norms, such as excessive college drinking (Miller & McFarland, 1987, 1991). Con-
sider the following two examples:

1. Classroom comprehension. A professor has just finished presenting complex material
and asks if there are any questions. Although most of the students do have questions,
no one immediately volunteers their ignorance by raising their hand. Based on this
observation, all students believe they are alone in their failure to grasp the diffi-
cult new material. Embarrassed, no one asks anything, and a class norm for hiding
incomprehension, rather than seeking out clarification and knowledge, sets in.

2. Freshman binge drinking. Popular culture often presents college students as wildly
partying and binge drinking. Freshman, believing this to be the norm, drink heavily

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 231 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

when they attend their dorm’s welcoming party, despite the fact that many dislike
this behavior. Seeing their peers seemingly enjoy drinking to excess, they continue
the behavior, while harboring the belief that everyone but them enjoys doing so. To
maintain acceptance, they emulate this behavior, yet internally believe themselves to
be deviant. This mind-set can lead to poor self-esteem, self-judgment, and alienation
(Prentice & Miller, 1993).

When the majority of people in a group behave counter to their own beliefs, social compari-
son can lead us to false conclusions. In the two instances above, students mistakenly believe
that the majority of their peers (a) have no questions and completely understand the mate-
rial and (b) enjoy drinking to excess. They conform to belief, never realizing that it is not true.
However, the behavior becomes a norm simply because most of them are doing it. Our open-
ing case study showed how this dynamic could play out in a work setting, as Hae, Michael,
and Jose all conformed to what they believed was the majority opinion, while each privately
harbored misgivings.

Because individuals want to be liked, to continue to belong, and to get along with other mem-
bers, groups can tend toward surface—sometimes superficial—harmony. To avoid confronta-
tion and other forms of ill will, members will publicly agree with each other even when they
privately disagree, resulting in consensus by conformity rather than reasoning. These pitfalls
are illustrated in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” This classic tale
illustrates the distressing and foolish consequences of overindulging vanity and pride and is
an excellent example of pluralistic ignorance.

Reality Check: Pluralistic Ignorance and “The Emperor’s New
Clothes”

Once there was an emperor so fond of being well dressed that he spent all his money on new
clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day and cared about nothing but feeding his own
vanity and pride by showing off his latest outfit.

One day, two swindlers arrived in the emperor’s city, claiming they could weave the most mag-
nificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were the colors and patterns of these fabrics exception-
ally fine, they claimed, but they also had magical properties. Clothes made of this material
would become invisible to anyone who was unusually stupid or unfit for their office. Naturally,
the emperor was intrigued. If I wear clothes made from this fabric, he thought, I would know
who in my empire is unfit for their posts, and tell the wise from the fools.

The emperor provided the two swindlers with the finest silk and purest gold thread, two looms,
and a large sum of money to start work immediately. They set up the looms and “started to
work,” though they only pretended to weave because there was nothing on the looms. All the
silk and gold thread went right into their traveling bags, and they “worked” the empty looms
far into the night.

The whole town knew about the clothes’ peculiar power, and all were impatient to learn how
stupid their neighbors were. Curious about the weavers’ progress, but secretly nervous about
his own ability to see the magical cloth, the emperor decided to send his most trusted and
sensible minister to check on his clothes. But when the trusty old minister went to the room

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 232 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

where the two swindlers sat working at their empty looms, he could see nothing. Heaven help
me, he thought, I can see nothing! Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the minister?

The swindlers asked the minister to come inspect their work. They pointed to the empty looms,
and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn’t see anything, because there
was nothing to see. But when the swindlers asked for his thoughts, the minister answered, “It’s
beautiful. Such a pattern, what colors! I’ll be sure to tell the emperor how delighted I am with
it.” “We’re pleased to hear that,” the swindlers said, and proceeded to name all the colors and
to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister listened attentively, so that he could describe
it all to the emperor. And he did.

After the minister’s visit, the swindlers asked for more money, more silk, and more gold thread
to continue with their weaving. All was granted and went directly into their pockets. The
emperor eventually sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how
soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister.
Shamed and fearful, he praised the beautiful colors and the exquisite pattern of the material.
To the emperor he said, “It held me spellbound.”

Now the whole city was talking of this splendid cloth, and the emperor wanted to see it for
himself. Attended by a group of chosen men, among them those two trusted officials, he set
out to see the two swindlers. When they arrived at the two swindlers working away at the
empty looms, the two trusted officials exclaimed, “Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What
a design!” In a panic, the emperor thought, What’s this? I see nothing. Am I a fool? Am I unfit to
be the emperor? But aloud he said, “Oh! It’s very pretty. It has my highest approval.” The oth-
ers stared and stared. There was nothing to be seen, but they all praised the colors and design
and even advised the emperor to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth in his upcoming
procession.

The swindlers stayed up all night before the procession to show how busy they were finish-
ing the emperor’s new clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom and to make
cuts in the air with huge scissors. At last, they declared that the clothes were ready. When the
emperor came with his noblest noblemen, the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were
holding something and named off each garment. “They are as light as a spider web. One would
almost think he had nothing on, but that’s what makes them so fine,” said the swindlers. All the
noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing. “If Your Majesty would take off his clothes,”
said the swindlers, “we will help you with your new ones here in front of the long mirror.” The
emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to dress him in the new clothes. They patted
his shoulders and seemed to fasten something as the emperor turned round and round before
the looking glass. Meanwhile, the noblemen praised: “Aren’t they fine! The pattern is perfect!
Those colors, so suitable! It is a magnificent outfit.”

The emperor turned again for one last look in the mirror. “It is a remarkable fit, isn’t it?” he
murmured as he regarded his costume. The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low
and reached for the floor, then pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn’t dare admit they
held nothing in their hands. So off went the emperor in his great procession.

Those who watched the procession remarked, “Oh, how fine are the emperor’s new clothes!
Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess their fool-
ishness or unfitness by admitting that they saw nothing. No costume the emperor had worn
before was ever such a complete success. “But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little girl said, only
to be hushed by her father. But one person whispered to another what the child had said, and

Reality Check: Pluralistic Ignorance and “The Emperor’s New
Clothes” (continued)

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 233 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

Groupthink
The most infamous dysfunctional dynamic in group decision-making history is a phenome-
non called groupthink (Janis, 1972, 1982). In essence, groupthink is a dysfunctional dynamic
that emerges within groups when the collective drive for consensus and harmony over-
whelms the rational desire to realistically appraise decision options and information. This
lack of appraisal results in (a) diminished critical thinking and moral judgment, (b) increased
use of confirmation bias in supportive reasoning, and (c) rejection of knowledge or evidence
that conflicts with the favored view. Groupthink is characterized by collective denial, will-
ful blindness, conformity, and concurrence seeking, a process in which a forced consensus
is manufactured by inhibiting discussion, censuring dissenting information and viewpoints,
avoiding controversy, and applying explicit and implicit social pressure (Postmes et al., 2001;
Benabou, 2013).

at last the whole town cried, “He hasn’t got anything on!” The emperor shivered, for he sus-
pected they were right. But he thought resolutely, This procession has got to go on. So he walked
more proudly than ever, and his noblemen walked with even greater dignity while holding
high the glorious train that didn’t actually exist.

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Who in the story was the first to fall victim to pluralistic thinking? How did this person

contribute to others being taken in as well?
2. At the end of the story, the pluralistic ignorance was broken by a single statement. It’s

rarely so easy to break up actual cases of pluralistic ignorance. Explain how the “belief ”
in the emperor’s new clothes was strengthened by each person who fell into pluralistic
thinking.

3. Pluralistic ignorance occurs in the workplace as well. In most cases, as in the story
above, status plays a significant role in this process, as group members lower in status
or organizational hierarchy tend to (a) fear or avoid being the lone dissenter against a
member in authority and (b) believe that members with high status or authority within
the group command the majority view. Looking back to our opening case study, describe
how pluralistic ignorance emerged within the group and how specific team members’
attitudes or behaviors contributed to this process.

Source: Adapted from Hans Christian Andersen Centre. (2015). The emperor’s new
clothes (J. Hersholt, Trans.). Retrieved from http://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/
TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

Reality Check: Pluralistic Ignorance and “The Emperor’s New
Clothes” (continued)

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 234 8/19/16 9:35 AM

http://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

Groupthink has been a factor in several historic disasters, including:

• the failures of NASA’s Challenger and Columbia shuttles (Rogers Commission, 1986;
Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003);

• the U.S. housing bubble (Norris, 2008);
• the failures of Enron and WorldCom (Cohan, 2002; Eichenwald, 2005); and
• the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Susskind, 2004; Isikoff & Corn, 2007).

Causes of Groupthink
Irving Janis (1972, 1982), who pioneered the research in this area, proposed that group-
think occurs when a strongly cohesive group is exposed to limited and one-sided information
and is isolated from outside influence or correction. These elements are common to insular
groups, which are isolated from outside input, criticism, and influence. Groups can be insular
by nature, as are select teams of scientists at NASA or high-level government officials and
advisors. Such groups tend to be insular simply because access to membership and influence
is so restricted. Other groups can become insular in practice due to strong cohesion, in-group
bias, or a strong desire to adhere to favored beliefs—such as the apparent security and ever-
increasing profits of the housing market before that “bubble” popped in 2008. Any or all of
these factors can cause groups to focus inward and reject outside influence and correction.

In insular groups, members tend to interact primarily with each other, and they avoid cross-
group contacts. Group homogeneity, or essential likeness, becomes imposed, and the group
closes itself off from cross-fertilization of ideas or receiving corrective input regarding its
mistakes. Furthermore, since members interact almost exclusively with one another, they
may begin to feel invulnerable and superior to those who are not group members. The more
insulated the group, the less corrective feedback its members receive. This leads to a higher
tendency for the group to feel invulnerable and increases their potential for making poor
decisions. Members can propose extreme ideas and face neither challenges nor corrections
from other group members or outsiders. Group members ignore or gloss over problems with
the group’s proposed solutions, and they conclude that failures must have been caused by
problems in the outside environment or by enemies. Due to strong in-group cohesion, opposi-
tion to poor decisions from within may be effectively stifled, and opposition from outside the
group is never examined. Let’s take a look at the symptoms that occur as a group cycles into
a pattern of groupthink.

Symptoms of Groupthink
How can a cohesive group identify groupthink? It can start by looking out for the following
symptoms:

Stifling dissent or nonconforming views. Self-appointed mind guards may attempt to protect
the group from contrary information or alternative courses of action, perhaps by suppressing
discussion at the first sign of dissent. For example, if a member begins to express a different
viewpoint, another individual may quickly step in and announce, “We thought of that and it
doesn’t work,” or, “Management would never go for that.” Potential dissenters quickly learn to
stay silent, which can sometimes eliminate important information and viewpoints.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 235 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Section 6.5 Process Pitfalls: Dysfunctional Dynamics in Group Decision Making

Treating dissention with social punishment. The group may not only stifle dissent or noncon-
forming viewpoints; it may go even further and reject the individuals who express disagree-
ment. Rejection is a form of social punishment that can involve strong personal criticism,
belittlement, or even expulsion. Once members witness the rejection of a nonconformist, they
are more likely to engage in self-censorship; that is, individual members fail to even covertly
consider alternative information or courses of action.

Harboring illusions of morality. The group may claim that its decisions are better than other
alternatives because the group is morally superior in some way. For example, it might allude
to greater values, such as being part of a democratic society as opposed to a dictatorship. It is
important to recognize that, occasionally, those making the strongest claims to the moral high
ground are the least justified in making those claims.

Harboring illusions of invulnerability. The group may come to view itself as invulnerable to
external forces or poor internal decisions. For example, a business team may refer to its For-
tune 500 status or its excellent performance in prior quarters when justifying a decision,
although neither may relate to the problem at hand. The group may allege that there is no way
its solutions can fail.

Experiencing excessive in-group loyalty and bias. Exaggerated in-group loyalty and biased out-
group perceptions may emerge. The group may refer to its superior values, the quality of
its membership, or a group enemy. Even respected outsiders may be perceived as unable to
understand the group or provide any useful criticism. This can generate an almost siege men-
tality of “us against them,” even relative to other members of the larger organization.

Experiencing group isolation or insulation. The risk of groupthink escalates quickly when a
group starts to separate itself from other groups and perspectives. By limiting interaction
and the exchange of ideas with outsiders, the group considers only a limited number of issues
and solutions. Sometimes we see this phenomenon in companies and organizations that only
promote employees from within or that keep the same individuals in positions of authority
for several years or even decades. As a result, the group engages in discussions that become
prematurely closed off to alternative ideas and opinions, and thus never gets to consider the
full range of information and viewpoints.

Belaboring known facts. The group may end up spending too much time discussing already
shared information. Although this can bolster social cohesion, it fails to leads to any new
insights. While remaining in familiar territory is comfortable, and consequently less stressful,
it may end up being identified by some members of the group as a waste of time, leading to a
negative perception of the group’s tasks and of the group itself.

Now that we know what to look for, let’s talk about how group leaders and members can work
to prevent groupthink.

Preventing Groupthink
There are a number of ways to diminish the tendency toward groupthink, and it is important
for group members and leaders to be aware of both the signs and the solutions. The best way
to prevent groupthink is to establish a dynamic that prevents it from ever developing. Ways
to achieve that dynamic include the following:

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 236 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

Use nondirective leadership techniques. Recall that overly directive leaders tend to limit idea
and viewpoint exchange and inspire conformity. Nondirective leaders refrain from announc-
ing their preferred position at the beginning of group deliberations and call for a free exchange
of opinion and constructive criticism. This can encourage members to share unique informa-
tion and viewpoints beyond the norms set by the group majority. For instance, an otherwise
reserved employee may identify a potentially significant issue regarding an economic oppor-
tunity for expansion, which might never have been voiced in a less encouraging atmosphere.

Create a tolerant group culture. A diverse range of knowledge, opinions, and viewpoints
strengthens our motivation to critically analyze all options and adds valuable resources to
the process. Group members must feel free to express dissenting information or viewpoints,
and that their input is valuable as a unique commodity, rather than feeling like a mindless
supporting cog in the majority infrastructure.

Limit status differences during group discussion. Leveling off or limiting status differences dur-
ing group discussion is a way to prevent groupthink from emerging from the top down. To do
this, create discussion groups from scratch with less variation in stratified positions, and/or
prioritize unique input and thoughtful consideration of shared information over member sta-
tus. This can generate valuable comments that differences in status might otherwise prevent
from emerging.

Stress structural rather than interpersonal cohesion. This amounts to centering group cohe-
sion on collective commitment, mutual accountability, and motivation. Stressing structural or
task cohesion over interpersonal cohesion is a way to keep group members focused on their
larger objectives rather than on personal allegiances. Such an emphasis can reduce the reli-
ance on friendship ties and focus it on the task at hand. In addition to eliminating extraneous
socializing and other possible obstacles, this can also result in garnering valuable perspec-
tives on the group’s task.

Appoint a devil’s advocate. Ensuring that someone in the group will raise opposing ideas cre-
ates a structure that naturally diffuses the insularity inherent in groupthink dynamics. Con-
structive controversy can often lead to important insights and improvements in reasoning.
However, it is important to rotate who plays the role of devil’s advocate; no one person should
appear to be a consistent dissenter, lest he or she risk breeding personal resentment within
the group.

Bring in outside experts. Invite outside experts to group meetings to evaluate information,
discuss whether group goals are realistic, and develop plans for action. Encourage group
members to foster outside contacts as well. Consultants and other outside experts can bring
a fresh perspective on various practices, and they may have similar experience from other
situations that they can effectively exploit to improve the group’s performance.

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

Group decision-making requires members to develop a shared understanding of the deci-
sion context, options, and desired outcome. Quality decisions depend on group members’
ability to acquire and use decision-relevant knowledge to critically analyze and evaluate
decision options. Individual preferences must then be integrated into a collective decision
outcome. Although disagreement is an integral part of the process, the group must be able

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 237 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

to unify their thinking and expectations regarding their decision-making process. Too much
unification, however, can impede the processes needed to make a quality decision. Under-
standing the dynamics of social influence can help group members recognize dysfunctional
attitudes and behaviors that can damage their ability to share information and analyze
options, and potentially lead to serious pitfalls such as groupthink. Working cooperatively
throughout the group decision-making process, including during argumentation and con-
flict, is key to fulfilling the requirements of effective decision-making. Next in Chapter 7, we
will examine the forces at work during cooperation and conflict, and how these elements
can constructively combine to enhance group performance.

Chapter Summary

• Decision making is a specialized form of problem solving that primarily involves
evaluation.

• Individuals can take a rational or intuitive approach to decision making and typically
use both in making effective decisions.

• The value in using groups for decision making comes from their ability to pool rel-
evant KSAs to:
1. Enhance the group’s ability to critically analyze and evaluate alternatives by

sharing and vetting information and expertise, testing member objectivity and
bias, and identifying and addressing deficiency or errors in information and
assumptions.

2. Ground intuitive responses to specific alternatives by testing individual expecta-
tions and assumptions against those held by other group members.

• Solitary decision making involves evaluating options to determine an individual
preference that becomes the decision outcome. Group decision making, on the other
hand, is a social process that requires integrating members’ individual preferences
into a collective decision outcome.

• The sensemaking process includes the following:
• Framing the decision problem
• Addressing resource requirements
• Selecting a mode of engagement

• Mode of engagement can change or be a unique blend of more than one mode,
depending on the decision-making process. The modes include command decision,
individual consultation, group consultation, facilitated group, or empowered group.

• Groups employ social decision schemes to integrate member preferences into a col-
lective decision outcome; most are based on some variation of voting and consensus.

• Voting is typically faster than consensus. However, it tends to foster less informed,
less committed decisions and may produce a dissatisfied minority.

• Understanding how to effectively build consensus within a group enhances the qual-
ity of a decision, no matter what social decision scheme is used.

• In group decision making, poor decisions primarily result from two factors: lack of
information exchange and failure to critically analyze decision options.

• Decision quality is also affected by social influence, which is a major factor in
motivating—or demotivating—critical analysis of decision options.

• There are three major processes of social influence at work in decision-making dis-
cussions: social comparison, conformity, and argumentation.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 238 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

• The exchange of preferences initiates comparison and the potential to conform to
preferences held by authorities within the group to preferences held by authorities
or high-status members within the group and/or by the group majority. Argumenta-
tion occurs when members advocate conflicting ideas, information, or preferences.

• Constructive controversy should be viewed as a learning process in which active,
focused, and informed debate between interested parties aids the reasoning and
evaluation process.

• When social influence becomes detached from critical-thinking and rational-reasoning
processes, it can lead to dysfunctional dynamics expressed as group polarization, plu-
ralistic ignorance, and groupthink.

Posttest

1. __________ causes group members to pretend to support an attitude or opinion they
privately reject.
a. Group polarization
b. Pluralistic ignorance
c. Groupthink
d. Insular process

2. Command decision refers to a mode of engagement in which the group decision is
made by a __________.
a. group leader
b. group majority
c. group minority
d. facilitator

3. A procedure or set of rules that govern the generation of a collective decision out-
come is referred to as __________.
a. the mode of engagement
b. decision integration
c. a social decision scheme
d. consensus building

4. Which of the following is NOT a type of social influence enacted in group decision-
making discussions?
a. argumentation
b. identification
c. conformity
d. social comparison

5. Majority rule would be the most advantageous social decision scheme in all of the
following conditions EXCEPT __________.
a. large groups
b. urgency in resolution
c. need for total buy-in
d. failed consensus

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 239 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

6. __________ is the key metaprocess in individual decision making.
a. Integration
b. Ideation
c. Evaluation
d. Argumentation

7. Group members have a tendency to conform to ideas and opinions advocated by all
of the following EXCEPT __________.
a. experts
b. leaders
c. group minorities
d. perceived authorities

8. For group decision making, the sensemaking process includes all of the following
EXCEPT __________.
a. problem framing
b. identifying resources
c. defining decision roles
d. debating preferences

9. Group polarization refers to __________.
a. majority versus minority factions
b. a type of social decision scheme
c. group shift toward an extreme
d. a consensus-seeking technique

10. Group decision making fundamentally differs from individual decision making in
that the process is __________.
a. complex
b. time-consuming
c. difficult to coordinate
d. social

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Compare a situation in which you voted on a decision after briefly discussing the
options with one in which you worked toward consensus within a group. Which pro-
cess was more satisfying, and why? Did you feel equally confident in and knowledge-
able about the decision outcome in both cases? Why or why not?

2. Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of using command decision
or group consultation to decide on a new business practice that will affect the entire
company.

3. List the symptoms of groupthink and explain how they can create a rigid, narrow
style of decision making that can foster poor group decisions.

Answers: b, a, c, b, c, c, c, d, c, d.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 240 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

Additional Resources
Links

• Decision Making by Committee:
http://practice.findlaw.com/practice-guide/pros-and-cons-of-decision-making-by
-committee.html

• How Cultures Around the World Make Decisions:

How cultures around the world make decisions

• The Intuitive Manager: A Threatened Species?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2014/04/24
/the-intuitive-manager-a-threatened-species/#631d433414bb

• Should Intuition Be Running Your Business? Yes . . . and No:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2013/08/05
/should-intuition-be-running-your-business-yes-and-no/#284313b5bf bf

• Three Ways Your Brain Is Hazardous to Great Decision Making:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/roncarucci/2016/01/21/three-ways
-your-brain-is-hazardous-to-great-decision-making/#2ca4a9ed2298

• How Mindfulness Improves Decision Making:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2014/08/05/how-mindfulness-improves
-decision-making/#70068af262a8

Videos

• Beware Neuro-bunk:

• Why We Make Bad Decisions:

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. True. Decision making is a specialized form of problem solving that primarily
involves evaluation.

2. False. Understanding how to effectively build consensus within a group enhances
the quality of a decision no matter what social decision scheme is used.
Building consensus before a vote can significantly increase comprehension,
commitment, and satisfaction with the outcome.

3. False. Decision making is a specialized form of problem solving that involves a
choice between known options, and problem framing is part of the initial
sensemaking process.

4. False. Groupthink is a major dysfunctional dynamics that results in (a) diminished
critical thinking and moral judgment, (b) increased use of confirmation bias
in supportive reasoning, and (c) rejection of knowledge or evidence that con-
flicts with the favored view. This ultimately damages decision quality, group
efficacy, and group process.

5. False. According to the common knowledge effect, group discussion tends to fea-
ture information that is already shared among group members.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 241 8/19/16 9:35 AM

http://practice.findlaw.com/practice-guide/pros-and-cons-of-decision-making-by-committee.html

How cultures around the world make decisions

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2014/04/24/the-intuitive-manager-a-threatened-species/#631d433414bb

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2013/08/05/should-intuition-be-running-your-business-yes-and-no/#284313b5bfbf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/roncarucci/2016/01/21/three-ways-your-brain-is-hazardous-to-great-decision-making/#2ca4a9ed2298

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2014/08/05/how-mindfulness-improves-decision-making/#70068af262a8

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Pluralistic ignorance is a sociopsychological phenomenon wherein a majority of
group members privately reject an attitude, opinion, or norm but publically abide by
it because they assume the majority accepts it.

2. In the mode of engagement known as command decision, a group leader, manager, or
single expert makes a decision and announces it to the group.

3. Group members integrate their individual preferences using a social decision
scheme, a procedure or set of rules that govern the generation of a collective deci-
sion outcome.

4. There are three major processes of social influence at work in decision-making dis-
cussions: social comparison, conformity, and argumentation. Identification is not one
of them.

5. Majority rule is a good choice for resolving a decision problem when dealing with
large groups, when time is limited, and when consensus cannot be reached. How-
ever, it can leave a disgruntled minority. Consensus is therefore a better choice when
total buy-in is required.

6. The critical metaprocess that drives individual decision making is the evaluation of
decision options in order to choose between them.

7. Members tend to conform to preferences held by perceived authorities within the
group, which include experts, leaders, and the group majority.

8. The sensemaking process involves developing an understanding of the nature of the
decision problem, securing the resources required to solve it, developing a shared
script for interaction, and selecting a mode of engagement. Once sensemaking is
complete, other elements of the decision-making process, such as debating individ-
ual preferences, can occur.

9. Group polarization is when groups experience both conservative and risky shifts
and group discussion appears to intensify attitudes, beliefs, values, judgments,
and perceptions that can move members to one or the other extreme (risky or
conservative).

10. Group decision making represents a social process wherein group members gener-
ate a collective decision outcome by integrating individual preferences or proclivi-
ties for action and response. It is the addition of social interaction that truly differen-
tiates the group decision process from individual decision making.

Key Terms and Concepts

agenda pushers Individuals who prioritize
a particular agenda over others no matter
what and use confirmatory biases in hypoth-
esis testing rather than evidence-driven
decisions.

argumentation A type of social influ-
ence that involves the exchange, analysis,
and debate of conflicting information and
viewpoints.

Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire A self-
assessment form that presented participants
with a series of scenarios involving risky
ventures that could potentially yield benefi-
cial results and asked them to indicate how
high the odds of success would need to be
before they would recommend taking the
chance.

common knowledge effect The ten-
dency to bias discussion toward shared
information.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 242 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

confirmation bias The tendency to per-
ceive, acquire, and utilize information that
confirms (rather than contests) preexisting
preferences, ideas, and beliefs.

conformity A type of social influence that
involves a change in behavior, attitude, or
belief in order to gain or maintain social
acceptance.

consensus building A social decision
scheme in which group members strive
for overwhelming agreement, solidarity in
sentiment and belief, and commitment to
supporting a collaborative solution or collec-
tive judgment.

constructive controversy The process of
using structured and relevant conflict to
stimulate informative and conceptual pro-
cessing and exchange; foster creativity; and
enable critical analysis, problem solving, and
evaluation.

controversy A conflict that arises when the
ideas, information, position, and interests
held by one individual seem incompatible
with those held by another.

decision making A specialized form of
problem solving in which an individual or
group chooses between two or more known
options.

devil’s advocacy A structured inquiry-
based advocacy method wherein an individ-
ual or subgroup methodically critiques the
reasoning attached to a particular position,
generates counterarguments, and identifies
any inherent issues and weaknesses.

dialectic inquiry A structured inquiry-
based advocacy method that involves
directly comparing the reasoning behind
positions that are diametrically opposed.

group decision making A social process
wherein group members generate a collec-
tive decision outcome by integrating indi-
vidual preferences or proclivities for action
and response.

group polarization The tendency to effect
a collective decision outcome that is aligned
with members’ prediscussion preferences
but is more extreme than the average of
these initial preferences.

groupthink A dysfunctional dynamic that
emerges within groups when the collective
drive for consensus and harmony over-
whelms the rational desire to realistically
appraise decision options and information.
This results in (a) diminished critical think-
ing and moral judgment, (b) increased use of
confirmation bias in supportive reasoning,
and (c) rejection of knowledge or evidence
that conflicts with the favored view.

individual preference A personal inclina-
tion to choose one decision option over the
others as the best among available options.

interests An individual’s personal desires
regarding the decision process and outcome.

intuitive decision making An approach
to decision making that is characterized by
making choices based on unconscious asso-
ciations between disparate pieces of infor-
mation based on experiential and emotional
biases.

inquiry-based advocacy When two or
more opposing positions are presented in
order to investigate an option or issue. The
goal is to establish a framework of relevant
information and reasoning needed to make
an informed judgment regarding the best
course of action.

mode of engagement An interaction model
that defines member roles, responsibilities,
and expectations for process interaction
during the group decision-making process.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 243 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Chapter 6 Summary and Resources

occupational identities Self-conceptions
encompassing internalized performance,
role, and behavioral expectations based on
social roles, status, occupational habits, and
internally and externally imposed rules and
norms.

pluralistic ignorance A sociopsycho-
logical phenomenon wherein a majority of
group members privately reject an attitude,
opinion, or norm but publically abide by it
because they assume the majority accepts it.

position A strongly held attitude or view-
point about a decision option or course of
action.

rational decision making An approach
to decision making that is characterized
by the use of critical thinking and deduc-
tive reasoning to make value-maximizing
choices that satisfy the bounds of situational
constraints.

sensemaking The first step in both indi-
vidual and group decision-making process
wherein decision makers orient themselves
by framing the decision problem, address-
ing resource requirements, and selecting a
mode of engagement.

shared information Knowledge and data
that is easily accessed and collectively held.

social comparison A type of social influ-
ence that involves evaluating our own
behavior, opinions, knowledge, attributes,
abilities, and worth in relation to relevant
others.

social decision scheme A procedure or set
of rules that govern the generation of a col-
lective decision outcome.

social influence The impact of shared
information, ideas, and viewpoints on our
own.

unique information The knowledge and
data that are only accessible to or held by
select individuals.

voting A social decision scheme that mea-
sures individual preference for each option
to find a majority preference.

cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 244 8/19/16 9:35 AM

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ 2 discussions due in 7 hours ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now