Page 249 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

232 Chapter 9

suggests a way to solve it, the group briefly discusses the idea, then it is adopted or
something else is proposed, and the group is off on another topic. Groups often flit
from idea to idea, and this random process is unlikely to produce a good solution.
Organizing problem- solving discussions helps groups balance participation, improve
reflectiveness, coordinate group members’ thinking, and establish important ground
rules for proceeding. 29
There is ample evidence that group discussions using a problem- solving structure
are rated higher in quality and produce better decisions. In one study, participants
following a highly structured problem- solving procedure made a greater proportion of
statements relevant to the issue than when the leader did not use a problem- solving
30
structure to guide the group. Groups not instructed in how to use problem- solving
guidelines tended to spiral from discussing problem issues to discussing solutions, a
31
sequence called “reach testing.” Observers rate the quality of such discussions lower
32
than unstructured ones. Even participants low in task orientation rate structured
discussions higher than those in which the leader fails to help organize the problem-
33
solving procedure. Following a structured procedure often provides logical priorities
and reminds group members of something they forgot to do in an earlier stage (such
as analyze the problem thoroughly before proposing solutions). As long as the logi-
34
cal priorities are incorporated into a sequence (e.g., problem analysis before proposing
solutions), no single structure seems to be better than another. In a study by Brilhart
and Jochem, three different problem- solving structural outlines produced decisions of
equal quality (although the participants preferred one of the structures to the oth-
35
ers). This finding was confirmed by Bayless and Larson, and Larson also found that
using no structural pattern for problem solving produced distinctly worse solutions. 36
Some people believe that following a systematic linear procedure is not normal for
small groups, but trainers in business and industry invariably recommend teaching sys-
tematic procedures. For example, researchers associated with a scientific research and
development corporation argued forcefully for a highly systematic, structured problem-
solving format to prevent scientists from making the kinds of mistakes often attributed
37
to random error. They note that systematic problem solving is not a rigid set of tech-
niques but “a matter of effective communication and data handling.” Moreover, group
38
participants themselves seem to want methods and procedures to help them function
more effectively. Experienced group participants can identify “methodological deficien-
cies” (i.e., gaps in knowing what to do at the right time and how to do it) as significant
barriers to effective group problem solving. They asked for tested procedures to help
39
them deal more productively with complex problems. The same expectations around
structure are found in virtual groups; research into what works best for virtual groups
shows a need for structure and members who are able to identify what they need. 40

The Functional Perspective of Group Problem Solving
and Decision Making
We have noted that procedures improve group problem solving and decision making,
but that no particular procedure seems to be superior to another. That is because a
procedure itself is not the key factor in determining performance; what procedures

gal37018_ch09_225_258.indd 232 3/28/18 12:37 PM