Page 277 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

260 Chapter 10

t a university where one of us worked, registration staff members calculated that
they were spending thousands of dollars processing all the courses that students
Adropped and added during a single quarter. In the days before computerized reg-
istration and fee payment, each of these drop-adds had to be processed by hand—a time-
consuming and expensive process. The registration staff discussed ways to cut the number
of drop-adds. Staff members concluded that students were scheduling classes without care-
ful planning and forethought, so they decided to penalize “frivolous” drop-adds by impos-
ing a fee on each one. But because they realized that some drop-adds were “legitimate,”
they included a procedure whereby the student’s academic adviser could waive the drop
or add if the student’s reason was a legitimate one (such as failing a prerequisite course!).
Before computerized scheduling, that meant that a paper form had to be completed for
each course dropped or added, and if the fee was to be waived, another form was needed
for each course whose fee was waived. It turned out that most students had legitimate
reasons for dropping and adding courses, often because their work schedules changed
from one quarter to another. The bottom line was that the Registration Office processed
nearly twice as many paper forms as before, at greater cost than the old, free drop-add
system. After a couple of years, this new system was abandoned in favor of the old one.
To us, this example suggests at least three flaws in the registration staff’s problem-
solving and decision-making processes. First, the staff made assumptions about why stu-
dents dropped and added classes, and the assumptions (students are irresponsible and
don’t plan ahead) were flat out wrong! This indicates that the staff didn’t do its homework
to learn why students dropped and added classes. Second, it seems as if the staff didn’t do
a thorough job of developing its options to reduce the numbers of drop-adds. Staff mem-
bers seemed to latch onto the first “solution” that fit their preconceived ideas about why
the students were drop-adding. Finally, staff members didn’t pretest their solution first,
either by asking the advisers for their opinions or by trying the process on a limited scale
or as a pilot project before they involved the entire university. This group would have ben-
efited from using a systematic procedure that focused on problem analysis.

Using Problem-Solving Guidelines

In this chapter, we present a number of tools and techniques to help you improve your
group problem-solving and decision-making processes. We noted in Chapter 9 that all
groups, whether face-to-face or virtual, that use systematic procedures generally do a
better job of problem solving. Even if they aren’t given a procedure to follow, many
groups develop one anyway because they sense, intuitively, that they need one.
Do not think, because we stress systematic problem solving, that we dismiss the
value of intuition! Each of us has often gotten inspiration from an intuitive “ah-ha”
moment, and we value those flashes of insight. Use your intuition—but don’t rely on it
alone, particularly when your decision will affect others. That’s when you really need
to assess your problem systematically and evaluate potential solutions thoroughly.
The first tools we present are three different procedures to give you an idea of what
is available to help groups organize their problem solving (summarized in Table 10.1).
Each addresses the functions of the Functional Perspective, although in slightly differ-
ent ways. We then use one of those procedures—the Procedural Model of Problem Solv-
ing (P-MOPS)—as an extended example of how groups can use structured guidelines.

gal37018_ch10_259_290.indd 260 3/30/18 11:14 AM