John dewey five steps of problem solving

Creative Problem-Solving And Decision-Making Skills Action Plan

CHAPTER OUTLINE An Overview of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies Finding a Balance between Group Structure and Interaction Reflective Thinking: The Traditional Approach to Group Problem Solving Question-Oriented Approaches to Problem Solving Beyond Technique OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, you will be able to: Describe the origins of the prescriptive approach to problem solving. Define and differentiate between group structure and group interaction. Use the steps and tools of reflective thinking to solve a problem in a small-group discussion. Apply the ideal-solution and single-question problemsolving methods to a group discussion. Determine which problem-solving approach is most suitable for a given group discussion. Whenever we present corporate communication training seminars for executives or business leaders on the topic of group or team problem solving, we begin our session by asking a simple question: What do you want to learn about group problem solving? The responses of the trainees are predictable. They want to know precisely what to do to make working in groups and teams more effective. They ask questions like “How do I develop an agenda when the group has a problem to solve?” “What are the best techniques to help a group arrive at the best solution?” “What should I do to ensure that my team operates at peak efficiency?” They want precise prescriptions for success. In the last chapter we introduced three approaches to understanding problem solving: descriptive, functional, and prescriptive. If you’re leading a group or are a member of a group, you could adopt a descriptive approach to problem solving and clue group members in to some of the processes and phases that groups experience when trying to solve problems. You could, in essence, give them a road map to help them understand how groups operate. Or you could hand out a list of the group functions—task requirements for groups—that we unveiled in Chapter 10: assess the problem, establish criteria, develop alternatives, and evaluate the pros and cons of the options identified, giving special attention to reviewing negative consequences of options you may consider. There’s a third approach—the prescriptive approach to problem solving. To prescribe is to offer specific and sometimes detailed do’s or don’ts to help a group perform well. However, as there is no single best way to solve problems in groups, no list of prescriptive problem-solving techniques always works. Each group is unique, as is each group member. Yet evidence indicates that guiding a group through a structured agenda can enhance its effectiveness.1 This chapter gives you several suggestions for solving problems in groups. We focus on the problem-solving task in this chapter and review prescriptions for enhancing creativity in the next chapter. An Overview of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies There are a vast number of specific strategies and techniques that can help you facilitate group problem solving.2 Most include references to five key elements: (1) identify and define the problem, (2) analyze the problem, (3) identify possible solutions, (4) select the best solution, and (5) implement the solution. These steps outline the primary way most scientists in any discipline go about finding answers to puzzling questions. We will examine the origin of these steps as well as why they continue to be used to structure group problem-solving discussion. The Origin of Prescriptive Problem-Solving Strategies In 1910, philosopher and educator John Dewey, in his book How We Think, identified the steps most people follow to solve problems. According to Dewey, a reflective thinker considers these key questions.3 1. What is the “felt difficulty” or concern? 2. Where is it located, and how is it defined? 3. What are possible solutions to the felt difficulty? 4. What are logical reasons that support the solution? 5. What additional testing and observation need to be done to confirm the validity of the solution? These five steps should look familiar. They are very close to the five steps we just mentioned. Even though Dewey did not focus specifically on small groups, the steps he outlined, called reflective thinking—a series of logical, rational steps based on the scientific method of defining, analyzing, and solving a problem—have been used by many groups as a way to structure the problem-solving process. As new courses in group discussion were being designed in the 1920s and 1930s, teachers and authors adapted Dewey’s framework as a standard agenda that could be used to tackle any problem-solving group discussion. One of the first texts to adapt these steps explicitly was Alfred Dwight Sheffield’s brief book Creative Discussion: A Statement of Method for Leaders and Members of Discussion Groups and Conferences, first published in 1926.4 Soon other scholars began making similar references to this sequence, and, as you will see in the discussion that follows, it has become a standard agenda for structuring group problem solving.5 Finding a Balance between Group Structure and Interaction Communicating with others in small groups to solve a problem is often a messy and disorganized process.6 Even though some researchers have identified distinct phases in the course of a group’s deliberation (orientation, conflict, emergence, reinforcement), others find that group discussion often bounces from person to person and can be an inefficient, time-consuming process.7 And, as we discussed in Chapter 2, groups also develop fantasy themes that can trigger a chain of stories—some that are related to the group’s task and some that are not. Although these stories and group fantasies are important to a group’s identity, extended off-task “storytelling” can have a negative effect on the group’s productivity. To help group members manage the messiness of group discussion, a group needs a certain amount of structure to keep the discussion focused. Group structure consists of the agenda and other techniques and procedures to help a group stay focused on the task at hand. A group also needs the energy that comes from interaction. Interaction is simply the give-and-take conversation that occurs when people collaborate. We suggest that a group needs a balance of structure and interaction to be both efficient and effective. Groups Need Structure To counteract the messiness of group interaction, researchers investigating groups have suggested that an agenda be used to structure the discussion. The purpose of a group agenda is to help keep the discussion on track, not to stifle group interaction or consciousness raising. Robert Bales found that most task-oriented groups spend a little over 60 percent of their time talking about the task and almost 40 percent of their time talking about social, relational, or maintenance matters.8 An agenda ensures that the time spent talking about the task helps the group accomplish its goal. Researchers have found that groups and teams that have no planned structure or agenda have many more procedural problems.9 Here’s a summary of what researchers have found by observing “naturally occurring” or unhindered discussion, where there is little or no structure. 1. The group takes more time to deliberate; interaction is inefficient and often off task. 2. Group members prematurely focus on solutions rather than analyzing issues. 3. The group often jumps at the first solution mentioned. 4. Group members hop from one idea or proposal to the next without seeing the larger issues. 5. The group is more likely to be dominated by an outspoken group member. 6. Conflict is likely to go unmanaged.10 The conclusion to be drawn from this research: Groups and teams need help to keep them on track. Of all the various ways to organize or structure discussion, which method seems to be the best? Many sequences of techniques have not been tested empirically. Among those sequences that have been compared in controlled studies, no single method seems to work best all of the time. One powerful conclusion, however, emerges from the research: Any method of structuring group problem solving is better than no method at all.11 Groups need structure because members have relatively short attention spans and because uncertainty results both from the relationships among group members and from the group’s definition of the task. In separate studies, researchers found that groups shift topics about once a minute.12 As noted in the last chapter, Poole argues that group members consider task process, relational concerns, and topical shifts with varying degrees of attention. Thus, groups benefit from an agenda that keeps the discussion focused on their task. And one research study found that some members need more structure than others. Group members who have a preference for using more rigid procedures arrived at higher-quality decisions than those using a less-structured approach to organizing their discussion.13 Another benefit of structuring conversation in a group is that group members are more likely to remember information during a more structured, focused discussion than a less focused, free-wheeling conversation.14 Having members first write information down and then share their information with the group increases the likelihood that they will remember what they share. Think of the various steps and tools in this chapter as a way to impose a common structure on a group’s deliberation. Without that structure, a group is more likely to wobble, waste time, and be less productive. Groups Need Interaction In addition to a structured agenda and procedures to help the group stay on task, groups need interaction—give-and-take conversation, talk, dialogue, and reaction to the messages of others. A group that has too much structure and not enough interaction is a group out of balance; participating in such a group would be like listening to someone give a speech rather than engaging in an interactive discussion. In trying to find the right balance between structure and interaction, researchers have found support for the following principles: High quality contributions early in the group’s deliberation improve group performance. The more individuals share their information with others early in the group’s discussion, the more group performance improves. If group members not only share but also understand the value and importance of individual contributions, then group performance improves.15 In order to achieve these principles, groups need facilitation to help balance structure and interaction so that all members participate. FIGURE 11.1 The Balance Between Structure and Interaction In this chapter we identify techniques that not only help your group stay on track (structure) but also facilitate group conversation about the topic at hand (interaction). Ideally, a group should have balanced participation to which all members contribute.16 A group member who talks too much can throw the group off balance. As Figure 11.1 suggests, the goal is to find the right balance between structure and interaction. Based on his effective decision-making theory, John Oetzel has found that groups that have more equal participation enjoy better-quality results; this research supports the assumption that groups need balanced interaction to achieve their goals.17 Interaction and collaborative group discussion has the advantage of facilitating cooperation in the group. One research team found that group members who first had a collaborative discussion about a decision, before making an individual decision about the issue, were more likely to make a decision that benefited the entire group.18 The very act of group interaction facilitates group cooperation. Some research studies suggest that groups that used networked computers to share information (a highly structured situation) generated lots of ideas but had difficulty reaching a decision.19 A less-structured, interactive, face-to-face situation was better for discussing alternatives and reaching a final decision. Many of the prescriptive agendas we discuss in this chapter incorporate the key communication functions of effective groups discussed in the last chapter. Reflective Thinking: The Traditional Approach to Group Problem Solving Some researchers and numerous group communication textbooks recommend reflective thinking (or one of its many variations) as the standard agenda for organizing or structuring group problem solving. However, many group communication theorists today believe that reflective thinking is more useful as a description of the way some people solve problems than as an ideal pattern for all groups to solve problems. We describe the procedures and tools that can assist you and your groups in organizing the sometimes uncertain and fractious process of problem solving. The steps we present here are not intended to be a one-size-fits-all approach. They do, however, provide a logical, rational way of structuring group interaction.20 Step 1: Identify and Define the Problem Perhaps you have heard the saying “A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” A group first has to recognize that a problem exists. This may be the group’s biggest obstacle. The problem should be limited so that members know its scope and size. After members identify and limit the problem, they should define key terms in light of the problem under consideration so that they have a common understanding of the problem. For example, one student group recently decided to solve the problem of student apathy on campus. The students phrased their problem as a question: “What can be done to alleviate student apathy on campus?” They had identified a problem, but they soon discovered that they needed to decide what they meant by the word apathy. Does it mean poor attendance at football games? Does it mean a sparse showing at the recent fund-raising activity, “Hit Your Professor with a Pie”? After additional efforts to define the key word, they decided to limit their problem to low attendance at events sponsored by the student activities committee. With a clearer focus on their problem, they were ready to continue with the problem-solving process. Researchers have consistently found that groups develop better solutions to their problems if they take the time to analyze the issues before jumping in and listing possible solutions; groups and teams have a tendency, however, to leap to a solution before looking at and analyzing the issues.21 Consider the following questions when attempting to identify and define a problem for group deliberations: 1. What is the specific problem the group is concerned about? 2. What obstacles are keeping the group from its goal? 3. Is the question the group is trying to answer clear? 4. What terms, concepts, or ideas need to be defined? 5. Who is harmed by the problem? 6. When do the harmful effects of the problem occur? When trying to pin down precisely what the problem is, groups should remember the principles of systems theory that we discussed in Chapter 2. It’s often not a single factor that is the cause of a problem; systems theory suggests that there are often multiple sources of a problem. As team researchers Peter Scholtes, Brian Joiner, and Barbara Streible put it, “Once people recognize that systems create the majority of problems, they stop blaming individual employees. They instead ask which system needs improvement, and are more likely to seek out and find the true source of improvement.”22 Tools for Defining the Problem In addition to using the questions listed above to identify and define the problem, three techniques that provide even more structure—the is/is not analysis, the journalist’s six questions, Pareto charts, and SWOT—may be useful when your group needs “super” structure to clarify and define the problem. Is/Is Not Analysis The is/is not analysis technique is a way to ensure that a group is, in fact, investigating a problem and not just a symptom of the problem.23 Early in a group’s deliberation, group members consider such questions as “What is the area or object with the problem?” “What is not the area or object with the problem?” “Where does the problem occur?” “Where does the problem not occur?” The chart below includes other questions that can help give the group the structure it needs to clearly identify and define a problem. Group members can use the chart to focus on the specific problem under consideration. Members could first write down their answers and then share their responses one at a time. Having group members write before speaking is a way to help further structure their comments. Is Is Not What What is the area or object with the problem? What is not the area or object with the problem? Symptoms What are the symptoms of the problem? What are not the symptoms of the problem? When When is the problem observed? When is the problem not observed? Where Where does the problem occur? Where does the problem not occur? Who Who is affected by the problem? Who is not affected by the problem? For example, one group was attempting to investigate the declining standardized test scores in one elementary school in their community. They thought the problem they were trying to solve was inadequate teaching that resulted in lowered scores. But when the group used the is/is not technique to identify when and where the problem was and was not observed, they discovered that the low test scores occurred in only three classrooms, which were in the same wing of the building and all cooled by the same air-conditioning system. On further investigation, they realized that the air-conditioning units were not functioning, which meant that classrooms in that wing were uncomfortably hot—which in turn affected student performance on the examinations. The problem changed from trying to eliminate bad teaching to repairing the air-conditioning system. The is/is not technique is a way to identify and define the problem rather than the symptoms of the problem. COLLABORATING ETHICALLY: What Would You Do? You have been assigned to work with four other students on a semester-long project that counts for 30 percent of your course grade. All members of your group will share the same grade. One member of your group, Enrique, has two small children to support and, in addition to attending your university, holds down a full-time job at a convenience store. You like and admire Enrique. He’s a friendly person who is working hard to take care of his family. But he just isn’t following through on his share of the work for your group. Enrique has missed almost half of the meetings, yet he e-mails everyone now and then with information and statistics to try to do his part, but he has clearly contributed less to the group than the other group members. Toward the end of the semester his two-year-old becomes ill and Enrique has to spend even more time away from the group. Although your instructor in the course hasn’t asked for information about how well other group members followed through on their work assignments, you’re concerned that your entire group may get a lower grade due to Enrique’s failure to do his fair share of the work. Other group members say, “Oh, cut him some slack. He’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.” You’re the only group member who is upset about the imbalance of work. Would you tell your instructor about the lopsided workload, or just keep quiet? What would you do? Journalist’s Six Questions Most news reporters are taught to quickly identify the key facts when writing a news story or broadcasting a news event. The key elements of almost any newsworthy story can be captured by addressing a journalist’s six questions: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? Using these questions can help a group quickly structure how a problem is defined. Group members could be given a worksheet such as the one shown here and asked to answer these six questions before the group’s next meeting.24 The group could then pool the results and be well on the way to analyzing the problem. Or, the group could brainstorm answers to these questions while the group leader records the responses on a flip chart or chalkboard. Who What? When? Where? Why? How? Pareto Charts A Pareto chart is a bar graph that shows data that describe the cause, source, or frequency of a problem. The chart is arranged with the tallest bars on the left and the shortest bars on the right. A Pareto chart makes it easy to look at data and identify the source of the problem. The chart gets its name from the Pareto Principle. Perhaps you’ve heard it: The source of 80 percent of the problem comes from 20 percent of the incidents.25 Here are some examples: Eighty percent of the dirt on your carpet is on 20 percent of the carpet’s surface; 80 percent of the food you order comes from 20 percent of the menu; 80 percent of the conflict in a group is created by 20 percent of the group members. Most groups find that the primary source of the problem comes from only a few examples. When a group or team is struggling to figure out exactly what the problem is, a Pareto chart can help the group spot the issue easily. FIGURE 11.2 Pareto Chart: Causes of Errors on Financial Aid Statements Consider an example: One group was interested in why there were so many errors on financial aid statements at their university; students weren’t receiving their financial aid on time. They gathered data and found that 61 percent of the problem was caused by improperly completed financial-aid forms, 23 percent was related to errors in entering data into the computer, 4 percent of the mistakes were caused by the fact that students provided no phone number, and 3 percent arose because students did not provide their e-mail addresses. When the group displayed these data on a Pareto chart, as shown in Figure 11.2, they could easily see the main source of the problem—the forms weren’t being completed properly. SWOT Analysis SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. SWOT analysis is the technique used to help groups and teams identify and analyze big issues that influence the group or organization and can be helpful in both identifying and analyzing problems. How do you conduct a SWOT analysis? Working individually or collectively as a group, you brainstorm a list of each of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, or threats of the group or organization, or use a template like the one in Figure 11.3. As illustrated in Figure 11.3, note that both strengths and weakness are internal factors of the group or organization—these are factors that exist within the group or organization. Opportunities and threats are those forces external to the group or organization that serve as either an outside positive factor (opportunity) or something that may jeopardize (threaten) a current positive action. With the SWOT identified, the next step is to rank order the information in each box: What is the greatest strength? What is our greatest weakness? What is our biggest opportunity? What is the most significant threat? FIGURE 11.3 Analyzing Organizational Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats: SWOT After identifying and ranking each of the four categories, the next step in the analysis is to consider the following questions: 1. How can we build on or maximize our strengths? 2. How can we overcome or reduce our weaknesses? 3. How can we take advantage of the opportunities? 4. How can we address the threats and potential threats? A SWOT analysis can be used to identify problems by noting weaknesses, or could be a useful technique to analyze a problem. Step 2: Analyze the Problem Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, was fond of saying that nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs. To analyze a problem is to break a problem into causes, effects, symptoms, and subproblems. During the analysis phase of group problem solving, members need to research and investigate the problem. In analyzing the problem, a group may wish to consider the following questions: 1. What is the history of the problem? How long has it existed? 2. How serious is the problem? 3. What are the causes of the problem? 4. What are the effects of the problem? 5. What are the symptoms of the problem? 6. What methods does the group already have for dealing with the problem? 7. What are the limitations of those methods? 8. How much freedom does the group have in gathering information and attempting to solve the problem? 9. What obstacles keep the group from achieving the goal? 10. Can the problem be divided into subproblems for definition and analysis? How a group analyzes information it gathers can make all the difference in how a group frames issues and, ultimately, solves problems. There’s the story about a shoe factory manager who sends two marketing executives to Africa to scout out the possibility of selling shoes there. The first executive sends a telegram back to the home office saying: Situation hopeless. No one wears shoes. The other marketing executive writes excitedly: Glorious business opportunity. They have no shoes.26 Both executives had the same information; they simply analyzed the situation differently. Tools for Analyzing a Problem Groups may need help in breaking a problem down into its subcomponents. Two techniques can help a group sort out factors contributing to the problem: (1) force-field analysis and (2) cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagram. Each technique can help a group focus on data and facts rather than on vague impressions of what may be causing the problem. Force-Field Analysis This technique is based on the assumptions of Kurt Lewin, often called the father of group dynamics.27 To use force-field analysis, a group needs to have a clear statement of its goal, which can be stated in terms of what the group wants more of or less of (for example, “We need more money, more time, or less interference from others”). The group analyzes the goal by noting what driving forces make it likely to be achieved and what restraining forces make it unlikely to be achieved. Follow these steps to complete a force-field-analysis chart such as the one in Figure 11.4.28 Step 1. Identify the goal, objective, or target the group is trying to achieve (such as more money, fewer errors). Step 2. On the right side of the chart, list all the restraining forces—those that currently keep the group from achieving its goal. Step 3. On the left side of the chart, list all the driving forces—those that currently help the group achieve its goal. Step 4. The group can now decide whether to do one of three things: (a) increase the driving forces; (b) decrease the restraining forces; (c) increase selected driving forces and decrease those restraining forces over which the group has control. FIGURE 11.4 Force-Field Analysis Chart Source: Julius E. Eitington, The Winning Trainer (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1989). Used with permission. All rights reserved. After the group has sorted through the facts and identified the driving and restraining forces, it will more likely be able to focus on the essential causes of a problem rather than on the problem’s symptoms. Say, for example, you are working in a group whose goal is to increase teamwork and collaboration among faculty and students. Driving forces—forces that favor teamwork—include such factors as faculty members who are motivated to work with students, students who also want to work with faculty, an existing training program that teaches teamwork and collaboration skills to both students and faculty. These and other driving forces could be included on the left-hand side of the force-field chart. Restraining forces—forces that work against increased collaboration—include current lack of knowledge of teamwork principles, the negative attitudes of a small but vocal group of faculty members who want to use more individual approaches to education, and the lack of a tradition of collaboration. These obstacles would be listed on the right side of the chart. Ideally, the group should work together on the force-field analysis diagram by using a flip chart or projecting the chart using an overhead projector. After generating additional driving and restraining forces, the group then turns its attention to the question “What can be done to increase the driving forces and decrease the restraining forces?” The group’s force-field analysis of the problem can provide new insights for overcoming the obstacles and achieving the goal. Cause-and-Effect (Fishbone) Diagram Another problem analysis tool often used in groups and teams is the cause-and-effect diagram, also often called a fishbone diagram because the completed diagram looks like the skeleton of a fish. Developed by Kaoru Ishikawa, a Japanese specialist in quality management, this diagram helps groups and teams visually examine the relationship between causes and their probable effects.29 To develop a cause-and-effect diagram, first think of the possible effect you want to analyze. For example, imagine your group is trying to identify possible causes in the drop in students’ standardized test scores in your community high school. The drop in test scores is the effect, but you aren’t sure what’s causing the drop. To prepare a cause-and-effect diagram, draw a long horizontal line on a piece of paper, chalkboard, or flipchart. Then, angling out from the long line, draw lines to represent possible causes of the drop in scores. Here you must use your analytical skills. For example, as illustrated in Figure 11.5, the major causes could be that the test-administration instructions are unclear; that parents are not involved; that teachers may not have time to prepare students for the test; or that students may have too many competing activities. Then, on each of the four angled lines, list possible contributing factors for each of the four main problem causes. For example, on the line suggesting that students have competing activities, you could draw lines to specify those competing activities.